#icure

This is a much more nuanced and complicated topic then we’re taught to assume.

 When it comes to giving up information it’s pretty clear cut. No, torture can’t lead to accurate information for a lot of interconnected reasons. I have about six separate masterposts covering the reasons for this.

 One of those is the antagonism torture produces. Another is the memory problems torture causes. Another is the effect that the use of torture has on organisations and the chain of command. Another is the effect torture has on torturers.

 Torture drastically increases the chances of memory loss and it also increases the chances of inaccurate memories. So not only is a torture victim less likely to talk, they’re more likely to be wrong if they do talk.

 But the effects on victims aren’t the main reason torture doesn’t work as a way of getting information. You’re assuming that torturers have access to people who have information.

 The reality is that torture destroys an organisation’s ability to gather accurate information. Most information comes from volunteers: when torture comes into play less people volunteer information. This means that an organisation which tortures is more likely to be questioning someone who knows nothing. That person is then abused until they start making things up.

 Because there’s less access to volunteered information and because humans are very bad at telling when someone is lying, a lot of these made up stories are believed. And this then effects who else the organisation arrests and tortures. This creates a sort of spiral, with lies leading to more lies.

 Additionally the torturers themselves make things worse. There’s less quality research on them, but the research and anecdotal accounts create a pretty clear picture of their behaviour. They undermine the chain of command, they lose the skills the originally had as they turn to torture, they’re aggressive, incredibly competitive and they have a… fracturing effect on their organisation.

 Basically they’re incredibly difficult to work with and totally convinced of their own importance. And this effects their colleagues. It totally divides organisations. The worst case I’ve read about involved members of the same organisation killing each other over access to prisoners.

 That’s a short run through of the main factors. Torture, in the legally defined sense, means all of these factors are in play. Plus a few more I’ve omitted to keep this shorter.

 With all of that together you just can’t get accurate information.

 If you want longer posts I’ve made on the subject I suggest looking for the ‘torture doesn’t work’ tag and the ‘torture as interrogation’ tag. You can also read the masterposts. If you want a much more in depth look at why torture consistently fails as a way of getting information I recommend O’Mara’s Why Torture Doesn’t Work and Rejali’s Torture and Democracy.

 O’Mara is a neuroscientist and goes through the effects torture has on the brain in a way that’s accessible, explaining the damage torture causes and how that destroys the evidence torturers claim to be seeking. Rejali’s book is a breeze block but it’s really a must, it is the textbook on torture in a broad sense. He ties together information from across the globe creating a broader picture of what torture does, not just to victims but to societies.

 The question of compliance under threat and pain… is more complicated.

 People can be forced to do some things. That much is obvious from a brief glance at human history and things like slavery. But it’s important to listen to what people in these scenarios say.

 And my opinion, based on what I’ve read, is that what these people say doesn’t support the idea that humans will easily obey instructions when they’re hurt or threatened. I think instead these people are making hard headed, rational choices in absolutely awful situations. I think when we don’t have these experiences of torture or slavery, it’s easy to look at the surface of the situation and assume that pain alone assures obedience. I think that happens because it’s hard for use to understand the rationale when we don’t have that lived experience.

 Let me give some examples. So it probably goes without saying that slavery goes hand in hand with physical abuse. One of the major researchers on slavery, whose data I quote pretty regularly, assumes throughout his writings that pain is the deciding factor which ‘makes’ people obey.

 But he also describes a couple of very obvious consistent patterns in the ways slavers behave. Slavers almost universally do the following things as well as using physical abuse:

Separate enslaved people from their community

Bar enslaved people from other forms of support

Make enslaved people financially/materially reliant on the slavers

Tell enslaved people that going to the police/authorities will lead to the enslaved person being arrested

Try to convince enslaved people that they will be better off if they comply, usually by framing it as a debt to be worked off with promises of riches after a period of time

 Now here’s the thing: we know from studies on cults and studies on ICURE techniques that a lot of these strategies will result in obedience when there is no violence or physical abuse.

 Given that I don’t think we can assume that violence is the deciding factor. In fact I think the evidence we have from forced confessions under torture suggests the violence may lead to less obedience and a lower ‘success’ rate then a set up that used emotional abuse or other exploitative techniques without violence.

 We have two sources of historical data that are used for statistical studies on forced confessions. One is from historical France. We think that this data set only involved torture to force a confession; no other method of coercion just violence. The rate of forced confessions varied a little in different areas but over all it’s about 10%. The second data set is from the ‘London Cage’ a British prison during the second world war. Here we know that torture was combined with blackmail, bribery and other kinds of coercion. The rate of forced confessions there was about 30%.

 And while this is just two studies, while the data is lacking… That is one hell of a jump.

 Let’s circle back to ICURE. ICURE stands for Isolation, Control information, create Uncertainty, Repetition and Emotive responses. It’s a set of techniques which can, sometimes, change someone’s beliefs when it’s applied consistently over a long time.

 Notice the effort slavers put in to isolating their victims. Notice that the behaviour pattern I’m describing means the slavers are creating uncertainty over seeking help and repeating those messages as well as messages that the victims will be better off if they just go along with it.

 Slavers will generally also try to control the information their victims have access to, taking phones and blocking access to news sources and other resources. Now a lot of slavers will transport their victims to other states or countries putting a language barrier in place. They sometimes also use emotive responses in attempts to persuade victims to comply.

 I’ve read multiple accounts where survivors of modern slavery described slavers telling them that the money they were making was being sent to the victim’s family and without it the family would not survive. (Sometimes the slavers do send small amounts to the families of their victims, sometimes they pocket everything.) I’ve also read accounts where gangs of slavers used religion and oaths taken in a religious setting to persuade their victims they’d be punished by God for not complying.

 Even with all of this, all these techniques we know can sometimes ‘work’- lots of people refuse. Lots of people disobey. Lots of people escape. Lots of people actively sabotage the operations the slavers put together.

 And if you look at that same history of slavery, that shows us people can sometimes be forced to work, you’ll see that this has always been true.

 We have records of historic enslaved people attacking slavers, forming organised militias, forming parallel societies, sacking towns, taking over an entire Caribbean island and beating off four European armies in the process. We also have records of smaller acts. Sabotage, worship of banned deities, speaking banned languages, destruction of property, aiding in the escape of others.

 What I’m saying is: this isn’t black and white. The evidence, modern and historical does not paint a clear picture of violence leading to obedience.

 Instead I believe that it shows humans are resilient, stubborn, adaptable creatures. People can survive all kinds of horrible situations. It is more accurate, more human, to assume that people make rational choices.

 Sometimes those choices involve short term compliance while looking for a better option or a way out. But we tend to hear less stories about the people who completely refuse to comply. We tend to treat that as an impossible fiction when it is a recorded historical and modern reality.

 Bringing this back to writing as a general rule the more complicated the act the less likely you can force someone to do it. Because the more complicated it is the more opportunities they’ll have to sabotage it or use it against their abuser.

 I recommend reading up on the history of Haiti pet. Then Brazil via Palmares.

 I’ll end this by bringing it back to those statistics on forced confessions in historical France. Imagine the conditions with me for a moment. Unsanitary, cramped cells. Dehydration, starvation and disease. Plus the kinds of scarring torture that are conjured up in the minds of most Western people when the word ‘torture’ comes up; thumb screws, leg irons that tighten until the bone snaps, whips.

 Picture it. Try to imagine the pain those people went through.

 And remember that 90% of them did not comply long enough to sign their name.

Available on Wordpress.

Very broad question without clear, satisfying answers Anon.

 Basically: there is no guaranteed way to change a person’s mind. There are strategies we know can’t work. But everything that has a chance of success also has a chance of failure. And it isn’t a clear cut thing that I can give you a clean list of factors for.

 Humans are difficult creatures to study because they come with a lot of inbuilt confounding factors and individual variation. This makes it very difficult to identify clear reasons why something didn’t work. Because we have to assume that multiple factors are at work and the interaction of those factors may be as important as each factor individually.

 Even if you write your villains performing ICURE ‘perfectly’ there is still a chance of failure. And therefore it is realistic for you to decide it fails for this character.

 We can’t really study which ‘bits’ of ICURE are most effective. Partly because of that little thing called ethics but partly because setting up a study would be incredibly difficult. It’s hard enough to measure belief. Finding a large enough sample size, controlling for every possible confounding factor or variable and studying people for the years it would take to get any answers… It’s a big ask. It’s probably never going to happen.

 So with the caveat that we can’t tell if any of the parts of ICURE are more important let’s talk about how they can break down.

 ICURE, for everyone who hasn’t heard me talk about it before, is a set of techniques which can (sometimes) be used to manipulate a person into changing their views. They take months or years to have any real effect and as mentioned they’re not always successful.

 The acronym stands for Isolate, Control information, create Uncertainty, Repetition and Emotive responses. And if you’re writing a story where villains are trying to apply this but not doing it well it can break down at literally any one of these points.

 I would say based on what I’ve read that different groups focus more heavily on different aspects depending on their setting and strategy. Groups that are straight up kidnapping or imprisoning people often seem to focus more heavily on isolation and controlling information but often fall down on the other three. Whereas the impression I get of cults and some extremist political groups is that they focus more on creating uncertainty and emotive responses, which they can then use to further isolate members from family and friends.

 Controlling information is a common place for ICURE to break down nowadays. The rise of the internet and the decreasing size of devices has made it easier for victims to access unauthorised sources even when imprisoned.

 But repetition is also a very common place for ICURE to break down because in large groups not every individual is going to follow the same script perfectly. Group members can also undermine ICURE by lashing out, physically or verbally, driving their target away.

 Creating uncertainty doesn’t always work. Sometimes victims straight up do not believe what they’re told. Some attempts to create uncertainty around core beliefs lead to a knee-jerk rejection of what’s being said. Sometimes targets know more about a given subject then the person trying to create uncertainty and as a result the attempt is absurdly obvious.

 Emotive responses are similarly… charged. Attempting to instil a sense of disgust or rejection of something an individual supports won’t always work. Over a long period of time it can. But I can think of a lot of cases where it has instead taught individuals to lie to the group, hide their beliefs or activities and served to drive them away from the group.

 Isolation is either difficult or easy depending on the context of the story. A character who is in a literal prison can easily be isolated from anyone but vetted individuals. A character who has been targetted by a cult, but is still going about normal day to day business, is a lot harder to isolate completely.

 Cults and extremist groups tend to rely on uncertainty, repetition and emotive responses because they know that if they can shift a target’s beliefs the target will isolate themselves.

 Let me give you an example to illustrate this. Imagine a country where there’s a big, culturally important celebration that involves eating candied orange peel and wearing red. Now imagine a cult within the country that rejects candy as sinful and wearing red as a sign of bad character.

 A character targetted by this cult might feel increasingly uncomfortable with this festival. May be at first they go with their friends and family, wear red but don’t eat the candied orange peel. May be the year after they decide not to go, missing a chance to spend time with their friends and family. May be a few years later their rejection of the festival is so deep they try to persuade their friends and family not to go.

 This leads to a big argument. They and their friends/family say things in the heat of the moment. Now all sides are upset and communication becomes harder.

 These kinds of patterns of behaviour lead to the target isolating themselves from friends and family, as their views become more extreme and drive away people who aren’t members of the cult.

 But crucially they can still choose to socialise with people outside of the cult. This will probably be met with social censure from the cult, making it difficult and painful. It is still possible. And outside friendships or activities can help a person to break free or resist ICURE techniques.

 All of this basically means you have a lot of options for your story because there are plenty of things you can weave in that would undermine ICURE.

 Your character is in prison, so breaking isolation is more difficult. But if the prison is overcrowded or there’s a sudden influx of people being transferred between facilities the character might end up with a… poor choice of cell mate from the guard’s perspective. Some one with beliefs radically opposed to the guards or someone who could support and shore up the character’s old beliefs.

 There may also be opportunities for covert communication and bonding within the prison. Perhaps prisoners can gather during breaks and have worked out a cant or code to talk about beliefs the guards are trying to stamp out.

 Control of information can break down because isolation has broken down, with prisoners trading information. It can also happen through the prisoner trading for a phone or a similar item allowing them to access forbidden information. Or it can happen through things like guards inadvertently giving out information.

 Uncertainty is difficult to create around core beliefs. The impression I get from anecdotal accounts is that pushing too hard at core beliefs too early often causes targets to withdraw from the people attempting ICURE. It can also lead to targets doubling down on their beliefs.

 People attempting ICURE can also mess up on creating uncertainty, as described above.

 Repetition can break down because guards don’t all do or say the same things consistently. They could contradict each other. Or they might just not repeat the same thing very often.

 Emotive responses can break down in much the same way creating uncertainty does. Not everyone responds emotionally to the same things or in the same way. Once again different guards can undermine the desired response. The character might dig in to their original position, they might withdraw from the people attempting ICURE. They might just learn to lie to them.

 I think as a writer the best approach to this is to use a mix of internal and external factors effecting multiple parts of ICURE. Just because I think that would create a better story.

 The readers can see the internal struggle and resistance in the character. They can also see the guards messing up and how that impacts the character. May be the importance of support from other people, fellow prisoners or cleaning staff or doctors or anyone else that fits with the setting.

 Basically including multiple elements will give you a more fleshed out story with more emotional depth and impact. That’s a good narrative reason to include it.

 I hope that helps. :)

Available on Wordpress.

I’m mostly working without studies here extrapolating based on what I know.

 The only bit of this I can definitively answer is that knowledge of what torture does wouldn’t effect the high innate resistance we have to it. Resistance to torture is bound up in so many fundamental systems, like how our nerves physically register pain, that conscious knowledge wouldn’t make much difference to the outcome.

 It might make the character feel better or more confident though: ‘There’s no way you can force this information out of me’. It might also make the recovery process a little easier if the character is tortured. Knowledge about mental illness and how they’re treated can help people identify what they’re going through and process it more quickly. It can also make it easier to seek help.

 For those who are new to the blog ICURE is a combination of techniques that can be used to change someone’s beliefs over time. As with everything there is not a 100% success rate but unlike torture consistently applied ICURE can lead to a controlled change in the target’s belief system.

 It stands for Isolate, Control information, create Uncertainty, Repetition and Emotional responses.

 A group of characters attempting to use ICURE would isolate the target from other characters, ensure that the information/news the target gets lines up with what the group believes. They’d then attempt to create uncertainty about previously held core beliefs and respond in an overblown emotional fashion if the target attempts to challenge their own beliefs. Repetition of this, consistently over a prolonged period (months or years) can (but does not always) lead to change in core beliefs.

 For an example let’s imagine a story applying this to Bucky Barnes from the Marvel series.

 A group holding him might try to create uncertainty by underlining how long he’s been held and how his friends haven’t attempted to rescue him. They might give him news that his best friend has another group of heroes he works with now. Bucky has been abandoned, forgotten. And so forth.

 An emotive response in this scenario could be something like the primary care giver of the group (the person who most regularly interacts with Bucky, giving him food and trying to interact positively) flying off the handle when Bucky mentions his old friends. How can he be so ungrateful? Doesn’t he realise what the caregiver has risked and sacrificed to keep Bucky safe? Does he think persuading the group to ‘help’ Bucky and keep him alive was easy?

 You get the idea.

 My instinct is that knowledge of these techniques would make them less effective. These things are never 100% successful and I think consciously acknowledging the manipulative nature of ICURE would make it harder for the captors to achieve total success.

 However a lot of the reason these techniques work is because humans are social animals. We need interaction with other members of the species in order to remain healthy. And as a result we often change and adapt in order to fit in with new groups. We are geared to compromise in order to gain or maintain positive social contact.

 I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist but I do know that there a lot of research papers which suggest personal opinions can gradually change over time when we’re surrounded by people with differing views in non-coercive settings.

 This does not necessarily mean full conversion to another set of ideals. The impression I get is that it mostly looks like a series of small and subtle changes.

 For the sake of avoiding internet insanity let’s make up an issue. Let’s make up a character who grew up in an area where no one wears red and the colour has a lot of negative associations.

 This character moves to a different area where the colour has different connotations and wearing red is a neutral act. Over a period of years the character’s attitudes towards the colour might mellow. They might never wear red themselves. They might not decorate with the colour. But they’ve met a fair few people who occasionally wear red now and they’re decent people. They don’t judge people who wear red the way they did when they first moved in to the area.

 What I’m trying to illustrate here is that it’s normal for people’s views to shift over time. Obviously this does not always happen. People can hold extreme or vastly differing views when compared to their community.

 From a certain point of view my views are extreme. Most cultures in our global society accept and legitimise violence to differing degrees. Pacifism is the absolute rejection of violence*. If you take a moment to think about how often violence permeates all aspects of our lives (from child care to religion to politics) you’ll see what I mean.

 What I’m trying to illustrate here is that while we do adjust and change to fit in with the people surrounding us we can also cling to things that are very much against the norm. And that makes it difficult to answer any of these questions with certainty. There is a lot of individual variation.

 A lot of the techniques to resist effective interrogation are essentially a refusal to interact. But the longer someone’s held outside their community the less viable that is as an option. We can choose to do things that are harmful to us (including avoiding needed social contact) but it’s hard. Because it’s unhealthy.

 I think the way I’d approach this as a writer is to start by identifying the core values of this character, the things that are most important to them. Try to think of things the character absolutely could not compromise without becoming a different character.

 Circling back to the example of Bucky Barnes, a core value might be his relationship with Steve Rogers, his oldest friend.

 Once you have an idea of the core values think of the next most important value. And keep going.

 I tend to do this pretty instinctively. For me it’s a part of my messy, sprawling character creation. If you need to take a more visual or organised approach to figuring things out then a list (with the most important values at the top) or a circle (with the most important values in the middle) might be helpful.

 Next think through the same process for the group that has captured the character. Since it’s a group rather then an individual it should be simpler. (Because a group is unlikely to be as nuanced and complicated as an individual.)

 See if there’s any overlap which might be grounds for grudging mutual respect. Values like loyalty to your own group and taking care of the people on your side are good things to use for this.

 I would then look at the more peripheral values the character has and shift some of them a little over time.

 Keeping Bucky as our example I might put something like ‘American cultural values’ as a more peripheral value. Bucky seems to prize the culture he was raised in and consider it the norm. But it’s not something he bases his personality on or something that motivates him through the stories. So shifting that, having him not see it as the ‘norm’ any more, or adopting things his captors did would be a good way to show that he has been influenced.

 Obviously the right choice, the right value to shift, depends on the characters and the story you want to tell. The degree to which you want to shift the character’s values is also up to you.

 Bigger shifts, or more obvious shifts, could serve to cause conflict later in the story. This could lead the character to feel rejected, like their loyalty is being questioned after everything they went through.

 Bigger shifts could also serve a practical purpose in the story though. If this character has gained a greater understanding for the group they’re opposed to that could make them a much more effective interrogator. They might know how to establish rapport more quickly and earn the trust of captured prisoners. Which could in turn lead to more accurate information.

 Greater understanding of the group they’re opposed to could also help with strategic thinking/planning.

 Smaller shifts add less elements to the story. But that could be a good thing too depending on your story. If you don’t have a lot of time or space to explore new conflicts or skills then this approach would save you narrative space while still showing the character has been effected.

 It would also work if the point here is to show the character as mostly unmoved, unchanged, despite coercive external pressure.

 I hope that helps :)

Available on Wordpress.

Disclaimer

Nope.

 Not even remotely possible. And the way this trope is used in most fiction it isn’t really survivable either.

 The best case outcome I can see for a situation like the one you’ve described is a severely physically disabled and severely traumatised adult who would probably be unable to care for their own needs or ‘pass’ as a normal member of society.

 I’m also… skeptical of some of the phrasing here. ‘Can be seen as torture methods’ sounds very much like plain ol’ torture to me. Whatever apologist material you’ve read I can assure you that in reality there is really very little grey area.

 Chances are what you thinking of is torture and has serious long term physical consequences. Like death.

 If you really do want to get this right then in my opinion you have a choice between keeping the torture or keeping the character as an effective fighter.

 I can’t tell you which is the better choice for your story. That is up to you.

 But if you want to be realistic and if you want to be respectful to survivors you can not have both.

 Neither option is right or wrong. It depends on what you think the most important part of this character is.

 If the torture seems to be the most important part then that’s going to mean accepting the effects on the character.

 A lifetime of torture starting at a young age is likely to result in death. When it doesn’t severe mental health problems and developmental delays are guaranteed. Long term physical disability is incredibly likely, but the exact form it would take depends on the abuse.

 Intellectual disability is also really really likely. Especially if the character is kept in solitary confinement, starved or food is withheld as a punishment.

 A character like this would be much less effective as a fighter then an ordinary person. They would learn how to fight much more slowly. Their strength and reflexes would be worse. They would be significantly hampered by chronic pain and whatever other forms of physical disability the abuse left them with.

 Essentially if a character like this reached adulthood they would probably require some form of regular support. This could range from health care worker visits every other evening to 24 hour care. It would take years of support, care and concerted effort for the character to be able to care for themselves and function as a member of their community. Even with all that support they might never be able to care for themselves.

 This is what I mean when I talk about the misconceptions we have around torture being harmful.

 Because we have all seen dozens of examples of this narrative. Where tortured characters are ‘forced’ to become warriors, assassins, ‘killing machines’.

 The reality is these people struggle to leave their homes. They struggle to feed themselves.

 And we turn around and paint them as dangerous for it, for daring to survive.

 It just isn’t cricket.

 Which brings me to option two. Trying to make the character into an effective and loyal fighter.

 That means getting rid of any physical abuse in the narrative because it is more likely to produce resistance to the ‘teacher’ character and is more likely to make a less effective fighter.

 When I say ‘any physical abuse’ I absolutely mean it. Spanking, going to bed without supper, standing or sitting in the corner for long periods, washing their mouth out with soap. Any physical punishment should be avoided in the story.

 Even if it’s a punishment that is normalised or portrayed as ‘less harmful’.

 Solitary confinement also definitely counts. The definition is less then 1-2 hours of human contact a day.

 There’s research on the effects of solitary confinement on young children, but studies on incarcerated teenagers in the US clearly show a larger negative effect in children compared to adults. If the effects on teenagers is severe enough to have a lasting impact on their ability to socialise then I think it’s safe to assume the impact on younger children would be devastating.

 Realistically speaking if you want a character to be capable of interacting with others in a passably ‘normal’ way then that character needs to have regular, positive interaction growing up.

 Abuse does not instil loyalty.

 In fact the evidence we have for torture pretty clearly shows that it increases resistance. It produces opposition, often lasting and strong opposition. This does not necessarily mean violent action; it means that survivors and witnesses tend to despise torturers and anyone they associate with torturers. And they act on those feelings in whatever way they can.

 Abuse does not aid learning or training.

 It does make students significantly more likely to die.

 If you want a character who is loyal and can fight well then realistically speaking the process you want to describe is more like a cult. I refer to these techniques as ‘ICURE’ partly because some of the literature does and partly because I feel like it’s a helpful acronym that reminds readers what the techniques are.

 ICURE means: Isolate, Control information, create Uncertainty, Repetition and Emotive arguments. Let me break that down and explain how it works.

 The group (or possibly just the abusive individual in your story) isolates the targetted character from people outside the group. This can mean physically imprisoning them or (more commonly) making it difficult for them to socialise with people outside the group.

 This can be done with punishments. But more often it’s achieved with manipulation rather then violence.

 If the target is encouraged to ‘convert’ others or persuade them to join the group that can severely limit the social interaction they have with people outside the group. It teaches people outside the group to avoid that person otherwise they’ll get a sermon.

 Another approach might be putting social or emotional penalties on interacting with people outside the group.

 For example, say this child character sees other children playing in a park and asks the teacher character if they can go and play.

 First the teacher might say that other children are awful and do they really want to go? They won’t enjoy it. Are they sure? Well the teacher has a lot of things to do today it would be very inconvenient. Are they really sure? They won’t have fun. Other children are bad and mean. Wouldn’t they rather do some more training like a good child or play a game with the teacher? Are they really really sure? Well alright fine they’ll go outside but only with the teacher and only for twenty minutes-

 This kind of interaction teaches children that trying to interact with people outside the group is not worth the effort.

 This is part of ‘Controlling information’. It means that anything the character learns is first filtered through the larger group. It’s a form of censorship which means the character is only exposed to information that supports the group/ideas the group wants the character to have.

 This is combined with creating uncertainty about beliefs the group wants the character to reject. Often this means only providing information that discredits their outside belief systems. It can also mean extended discussions about ‘why x is wrong’.

 Things that are designed to create uncertainty don’t have to be true or accurate. Often they’re not. But if the character has little contact with outside sources they may never find out the truth.

 Repetition is, what it says on the tin. It’s repeating this pattern of only giving the character information the group wants them to have, positive messages about the ideals the group wants to instil and negative messages about previous belief systems. Consistent repetition over a long period of time has an effect on our beliefs. Sometimes it even effects them when we know the information is wrong.

 Emotive arguments means- well keeping any discussion away from logic. Something like- going from ‘well I’m not sure this idea about our belief system lines up with what you taught me’ to the manipulative character asking why the target hates them/God/the entire group.

 This sort of environment through childhood would lead to an intensely isolated individual, almost entirely reliant on the teacher-character for all their emotional and social needs as well as physical survival.

 And that produces a character that’s likely to be intensely loyal.

 Because we are social animals and we need positive interaction. We will often to choose to go along with group-actions, even if we don’t like them or feel they’re wrong, if the alternative is being alone.

 Manipulative groups and individuals often go out of their way to persuade targetted people that the only options are them or complete isolation. It’s a horribly successful strategy.

 Rounding this off- I suggest you take a look at this masterpost on common torture apologia tropes.

 You should also read this post on researching torture and this one on the most common effects it has on adults.

 I can’t tell which of these two options is the correct one for your story.

 All I can really do is explain why the story, as it is right now, is unrealistic. And how that repeated fictional trope harms survivors and our understanding of torture.

 Where you go from here and how you use that information is up to you.

Availableon Wordpress.

… villain to use? And how are the effects of long-term torture? The protagonist doesn’t want his friends to know he is suffering, but would it be possible to hide?

-

How plausible this is depends on what ‘giving up powers’ means in your world. If it’s a simple thing to do that only requires a few seconds of action it might be possible for the torturer to force the character to do this. If on the other hand it takes agreement, change of beliefs or any sort of complex action longer then a few minutes- it’s pretty much impossible.

 One of the few things we know torture can do is force confessions. The ‘success’ rate will probably surprise you though.

 Statistical analysis of historical cases in France suggests that the average ‘success’ rate for forced confessions from torture is about 10%.

 Under torture 90% of people will not comply long enough to sign their name.

 There is no evidence to suggest this is effected by age, gender, race, sexuality, disability or any other inherent characteristic.

 If giving up powers in your universe is as simple as signing your name then by all means, decide your character is part of the 10%.

 If it’s anything more complicated and involved then signing a name or an X, it’s probably not going to work.

 Torture can’t change minds and can’t force people to do things they’re absolutely opposed to.

 People can be forced to work. But the more long term and the more complex the actions a person is coerced into doing the more likely it is they’ll find a way to oppose their abusers.

 When we discuss transatlantic slavery we tend to ignore the widespread opposition that occurred at the time. In the face of torture and threats to their lives enslaved people in the Americas:

Declared and waged war on white overlords

Poisoned ‘masters’ and their families

Escaped

Assisted others in escaping

Assisted others in violent campaigns against abusers

Sabotaged their work

Broke valuable items in their abuser’s possession

Conducted religious rituals aimed at harming their abusers

Killed themselves to deprive their abusers of wealth

 Essentially resistance to torture is extremely common. Torture seems to make people much more likely to oppose the torturer and their ‘side’, even if they had sympathy with them before.

 If you want your character to give up their powers then I’d strongly suggest not using torture.

 Technically possible or not there’s a strong tendency in fiction to show torture changing hearts and minds. This is pretty much impossible.

 And the continued message that it is possible effects how we respond to torture survivors in real life. It portrays survivors as dangerous and untrustworthy which makes denying them help seem ‘reasonable’.

 If you feel it’s absolutely essentially to your story the character gives up his powers and it is an involved process or requires a significant shift in his beliefs then violence generally does not work.

 The most realistic thing you can have your antagonist doing is try to persuade the character they are right.

 This could takes months or years of carefully building up a relationship with him. Spending hours with him each day. In a manipulative, unethical character, it would also mean limiting his contact with other people, cutting off his access to outside information and manipulating the information he does see to portray the antagonist and their cause in a more favourable light.

 That’s how hearts and minds change.

 If you feel the torture is essential to the story then- realistically torture is never going to change anyone’s beliefs in a way the torturer can control. It is not going to ‘make’ a victim help the torturer.

 And it is going to have a huge impact on the survivor’s mental health for the rest of his life.

 Torture causes severe and lifelong mental illness. Whether or not that can be hidden depends on the exact symptoms an individual has. But regardless of whether it can be done it’s an extremely unhealthy thing to do.

 Torture survivors are already systematically barred from getting the treatment they need. The average time it takes to see a specialist is around 10 years.

 Hiding symptoms would mean less access to even non-specialist mental health care. It would result in a worse outcome.

 These symptoms are severe. I don’t think it would be possible to come out of torture looking ‘normal’, especially to someone who knows the character well. Someone might be able to hide exactly what they’re going through, or some of their symptoms but- I think it’s likely close friends would recognise something was wrong.

 There isn’t anyway to predict which individuals develop which symptoms and the possible symptoms are the same regardless of the torture used.

 So what I suggest is that authors look at this list of common symptoms and pick 3-5 symptoms that they feel fit their character and story best.

 But before you do that; I think you should read this post on common torture apologia tropes and take a look at the tag for ICURE, which covers unethical but effective manipulative practices.

 I think this story needs major changes if you want to write in a way that’s realistic and respectful. But the ‘best’ option depends on what you want from your story.

 If you want the character to give up his powers and start agreeing with the villain then you need to get rid of the torture elements and start reading up on ICURE.

 If you want the character to be tortured then ink you should give up on the idea of the victim agreeing with and obeying the torturer.

 Either way you’re going to have a character who is obviously changed by his experience, in a lasting way. A way that I think would be noticeable to most people close to him.

 If you’re not willing to commit to that then I think you should completely re-think the story. Traumatic incidents should have consequences and lasting effects. Otherwise they become meaningless in the narrative and support the idea that real life abuse can be harmless.

 There’s a lot to think about here. Take your time, decide what you want to do. And if you have any more questions feel free to send them here when the ask box is open.

 I hope that helps. :)

Availableon Wordpress.

group with all the “brain washing” present but this is the person who means the most of everything to him (and also the one who betrayed him by leaving).. what would they use to convince him to leave the group? Could they even get him leave? I havent finished researching or building my plot but I hit this snag and I want to do these characters justice and I wanted your opinion 2/2

So let me start by saying that even if they’re ‘only’ scouting and cleaning the character still very much counts as a child soldier. The technical definition doesn’t mean the victim is actively fighting, but that they’re recruited into an armed group and doing work for them.

 I’m mentioning that because if you’ve been assuming accounts of child soldiers at younger ages (10) aren’t applicable, if you’ve been assuming those children were all actively fighting- That’s probably not the case and those sources probably will be useful to you.

 I’m basing this response primarily on the LRA (Lord’s Resistance Army, don’t google it if you’re triggered by child abuse of any kind). That’s the modern group I know the most about. While I know a bit more about historical uses of child soldiers my overall impression is that historical accounts have less of the kind of information you’re after.

 I’ll start with the reasons people, and especially children, stay in these groups. After that we can move on to ways you can move your character out of them.

 The most helpful place to start is with ‘ICURE’, these are a set of techniques which are used to manipulate people. As with anything they are not 100% effective, but over long periods of time this set of behaviours (and environmental factors) can change a person’s beliefs and behaviour.

 It stands for Isolate, Control information, create Uncertainty, use Repetition and Emotive arguments.

 The first point should be pretty obvious. The character needs to be isolated from their previous social circle and support network. When people don’t receive any information from outside of the group the group eventually becomes their most trustworthy source. When they don’t have social contact outside the group they become reliant on the group for support.

 Controlling information means that anything the character learns is first filtered through the larger group. It’s a form of censorship which means the character is only exposed to information that supports the group/ideas the group wants the character to have.

 This is combined with creating uncertainty about beliefs the group wants the character to reject. Often this means only providing information that discredits their previous belief system. It can also mean extended discussions about ‘why x is wrong’.

 Repetition is, what it says on the tin. It’s repeating this pattern of only giving the character information the group wants them to have, positive messages about the ideals the group wants to instil and negative messages about previous belief systems. Consistent repetition over a long period of time has an effect on our beliefs. Sometimes it even effects them when we know the information is wrong.

 Emotive arguments means- well keeping any discussion away from logic. Something like- going from ‘well I’m not sure this idea about our belief system lines up with our holy text’ to the manipulative character asking why the target hates them/God/the entire church.

 My impression is that while armed group like the one you’re writing all use some ICURE techniques they do not always use all of the techniques consistently.

 The other main thing these groups rely on for keeping members is- the way mainstream society responds to former child soldiers.

 Children who have been kidnapped are sometimes coerced into taking part in the torture and murder of adult prisoners from their home town. Those that refuse are killed.

 The reason groups do this is to ‘make sure’ these kidnapped children ‘can’t’ go home.

 They’re told that they’re tainted. That their family will never take them back. That their village will drive them away, reject them, kill them.

 They’re told that their only hope of a good life from now on is to stick with the armed group.

 And the horrible thing is- they’re half right.

 Child soldiers often are rejected by mainstream society.

 Some of that rejection is overt. Villagers don’t want that kid living here. Their family doesn’t recognise them and doesn’t want them back. No one wants to marry the teenage mother who escaped from the soldiers and a few people suggest killing her baby. Villagers isolate and shun returnees.

 Some of it is a little more subtle. Because these children have missed out on both schooling and apprenticeship schemes they don’t really have any skills. They often struggle to find work. Most of the jobs they can get in mainstream society are incredibly low paying and can trap them in poverty and debt.

 Ex-child soldiers are sometimes targetted by criminal gangs for recruitment. Many of them think that this is their best/only chance to escape poverty and to have some sort of supportive social circle outside the armed groups. Unfortunately that’s pretty close to the truth in a lot of cases.

 This is why a lot of countries have programs dedicated to teaching former child soldiers new skills. It’s also why a lot of places focus so much on re-integrating former child soldiers into the community.

 Rejection by the community and the prospect of lifelong poverty ‘proves’ the point the armed group tried to teach them: that they’re tainted and the only chance they have of a ‘good’ life is as a fighter for the armed group.

 So- where does that leave your character?

 The good news is people do leave. Even older children who’ve been with the group for a long time.

 You can realistically have the fictional armed group only using some of the ICURE techniques and applying them inconsistently. All of these groups isolate their victims and all of them repeat the message that victims will be rejected by mainstream society is they return.

 But not all of them have good/consistent control over the information victims can access. Many of them don’t seem to bother trying to create uncertainty and many of them seem to skip emotive arguments in favour of violence and torture. Which often increases opposition in victims.

 My instinct is that the main hurdle to get over is the idea of rejection by society coupled with the fact that most of the character’s social circle/contact is in the armed group.

 Humans are social animals. We need support, contact and positive reinforcement to thrive. No matter how toxic a group is people will tend to cling to it if they think their only other option is being alone for the rest of their lives.

 Because this character has a good friend outside the armed group he already has a start on that.

 Seeing someone else thrive outside the group will go a long way to countering the idea leaving means loneliness. Having a point of contact outside saying ‘no it’s OK. I’ve made friends. I’ve got a job. I’m safe and I’m doing well.’ that undermines a lot of the messages that keep child soldiers in armed groups.

 Regular communication in which those points are repeated would help encourage the child soldier to leave.

 I think you could also use the violence of the armed group to help drive this character back into society.

 I talk quite a bit about the way torture tends to produce entrenched resistance. These kinds of armed groups often use corporal punishment against their members. If this character is beaten or if he sees someone close to him beaten, while he’s in the process of questioning whether he can leave; that could be a deciding factor. It could be used to drive him to act.

 Much of this essentially comes down to a combination of undermining ICURE and showing the character life outside the armed group is better.

 Consistent communication with someone outside the group undermines the character’s isolation, gives him another source of information and- creates it’s own uncertainties about the messages the group tries to teach.

 Remember that nothing is 100% effective in these scenarios and that goes both ways.

 There isn’t a sure fire way to get people out of these groups. But there isn’t a sure fire way to keep them there either.

 ‘Brainwashing’ in the sense of coercing/torturing someone into changing their strongly held beliefs, with the ‘new’ belief set being completely unshakable, does not exist.

 It is realistic to have a child soldier not wanting to leave the armed group that kidnapped them. But this isn’t an unreasoned position. These children know that their chances of a decent life (not wealthy, or extravagant, just the ability to get by in an ordinary way) are limited in mainstream society. They know that the armed group can provide a certain amount of security (food and shelter) and occasionally rewards.

 My impression of reintegration efforts is that often focus on giving children a better offer.

 You’ve built up a your characters in a way that means you can do that.

 Realistically it would take quite a bit of time and planning to get this character to leave. If he wanted to.

 Building their relationship so that the decision to leave feels authentic is going to be hard work. Especially if the child soldier character still sees this as a betrayal. Showing that they still have points in common is a good way to start doing that.

 Consider whether there’s any form of support the child soldier could only get from this friend outside the group. Support for mental health problems for instance.

 That’s as much as I can really tell you about how this process works. There’s a guide here that talks about reintegrating girls into the community. You might find it helpful.

 I get the impression part of this is about working out how you in particular should handle this though. There isn’t one right answer to that. Much of it will depend on how you write, what these characters are like and how the overall plot pans out.

 I tend to write in a very character-driven way and I tend to write pretty instinctually. Which means the way I’d approach this sort of scenario would be by creating multiple opportunities for the characters to interact and then sitting back to see what they do.

 If the results don’t come out the way I’d like them to then I think about how I can change the environment around the characters to encourage the effect I want. Most of the time- it feels like I’m following the characters rather then directing them.

 But that’s not how everyone writes and there’s nothing wrong with taking another approach if it works better for you.

 Think about the child soldier, what his personality is like and what he values.

 If he values loyalty very strongly then it’s probably going to take him a long time to get over his friend’s ‘betrayal’. If he strongly values security (for himself and the people he cares about) then hearing his friend tell him that life is good outside the group would have a bigger effect sooner.

 Is he the kind of person who stubbornly sticks to his point even when it’s demonstrably wrong or causing him pain?

 Ryuji Sakamoto (a character from Persona 5) has a lot of flaws, but I feel like one of his underrated virtues is his ability to easily change his mind when presented with more evidence. There are several points in the story where he goes from being actively against other characters to extremely sympathetic when he learns more about their situation.

 A character with that kind of internal flexibility would probably find it easier to leave an armed group. Whereas a character who feels as though they’re invested and struggles to accept anything that contradicts that view would struggle more.

 I sometimes feel as though the prompt sheets designed to help us flesh out characters can hinder this kind of planning and decision making. They ask us to list defining traits and ideals without stress testing them.

 If I take one of my own characters as an example- It would be perfectly accurate to describe her as a patriot and loyal to her country. That’s how she thinks of herself. But her ideas about what the country should be and what the essential, positive qualities of the country are do not line up with the mainstream. Neither does her idea of who is part of the country.

 And these values rank lower for her then the value she places on her family and close friends.

 She is both loyal and treacherous depending on who you ask. And these things are not contradictory.

 So consider what really defines this character’s internal landscape. Think about how he ranks those values and whether those ranks change as conditions change.

 If you build his escape from the traits you’ve already used to define him it will feel much more authentic to readers. Build it up so that, rather then contradicting his values, you’re putting different values in conflict and making the character choose between them.

 Don’t be afraid to have him stumble and doubt himself. Leaving these kinds of groups is difficult and dangerous. Don’t shy away from that.

 Be prepared to give this a lot of narrative space and to have to edit it several times.

 Seek out writing groups and beta readers. I usually advise that for difficult scenes but here I think it would help to make sure that you’re building this up consistently in a way readers find easy to follow.

 I hope that helps. :)

Availableon Wordpress.

Theanswer to this depends on the sort of responses you’re talkingabout and I don’t think the wording is great-

Butit’s difficult to know what the ‘right’ terms are when mostexperts disagree. I respond very negatively to the term‘brainwashing’ because of cultural implications that go alongwith that word. However there aremental health professionals who use the term, even those who researchthings like cults.

They’reusing the term to refer to a very specific set of manipulativetechniques in a way they hope will appeal to and be understood by themainstream.

I’mrejecting the term because I think it ends up leaving people with avery skewed view of what’s possible and confusing people further.

AndI think ‘conditioned’ looks very much like a synonym for‘brainwashed’ in this context.

Theword implies a lack of agency or choice on the part of henchman. Andit’s impossible to take away someone’s ability to choose.

Avillain can take away their physical capacity to make a choice (acharacter with their hands tied behind their back can’t choose toshake someone’s hand). A villain can manipulate. A villain cancoerce, so that the choice a character makes isn’t a free choice. Acharacter with a gun to their head being told notto shake hands is likely to think that shaking hands isn’timportant enough to risk their life over. But the character stillchooses.

Thereare a couple of ways that you can make the relationship between thishenchman and the villain extremelyunhealthy, manipulative and coercive, while having him realisticallyview her positively. I get the impression you already know that noneof them involve violence.

Let’sstart by talking about ICURE.

ICUREis an acronym that covers a set of techniques which are scarilyeffective at manipulating people and coercing them into changingtheir beliefs. It stands for Isolate, Control information, introduceUncertainty, Repetition and Emotive responses.

Fromyour description there’s a lotof potential for all of those right at the start of this relationshipwhen the villain rescues the henchman. In fact in the environmentyou’ve suggested it might not even be entirely conscious on thevillain’s part.

Dependingon his injuries and the way medicine is practiced in this setting itmight be perfectly natural for the henchman to be isolated fromalmost everyone butthe villain while he recovers. And that could be a long period oftime- months or years with complex injuries.

Ithink complex injuries with a long healing time would fit really wellwith this scenario and could help make the relationship appear ‘good’from the point of view of the henchman and the villain. Somethinglike complex breaks in major bones, requiring physical assistance andthen possibly physiotherapy providing a ‘natural’ reason for thecharacters to spend a lot of time together and for the henchman to beisolated from others.

Duringthat time the villain has a massive amount of power over thehenchman. But it doesn’t need to be wielded in ways that seemobviously forceful.

Tellingsomeone you won’t let them contact their friends or family has avery different effect to telling a vulnerable character in this sortof position that it’s too dangerous to do so.

‘Ireally wish I could but then wemight be captured. Or they might be tortured too.’ This makes itsound as if the villain’s motive is primarily to protect thehenchman, rather than to isolate him, manipulate him and make himreliant on her. It encourages him to view his isolation positively,to agree to it for the greater good.

Andthe terrible thing is it’s not untrue. Part of the reason torturesurvivors are often ostracised by their communities is the fact thatpeople close to them could also be targeted. This happens especiallyoften with charity workers, politicians and activists.

Soit’s relatively easy for the villain to isolate the henchman inthis scenario.

Onceisolated the villain would need to carefully control the informationthe henchman has access to. Essentially the villain is making surethat the henchman only ever gets her side of the story.

Ina modern setting that could mean telling him that it’s ‘safer’if they can’t use the internet or phones. They can’t be traced orfollowed. This has the added bonus of reinforcing and repeating themessage that the henchman is only safe with the villain and thatshe’s trying to protect him.

Ina more historic setting it’s often part and parcel of isolationitself.

Whateverthe setting part of this means controlling who communicates with thehenchman and what they’re likely to say. The aim is to make surethat almost nothing contradicts the villain’s version of events.Anything that does is a rare blip.

The‘Uncertainty’ aspect of ICURE is probably more relevant if she’strying to get him to break with a group he was previously part of orcompromise on some of his values. It means exposing him to thingsthat are designed to make him question his membership of a group orthe values that group instils.

I’mtrying to think of a…less awful example of this for the purposes ofthis ask. Most of the things that spring to mind are part ofsustained campaigns of hate speech before and during genocides.

You…may or may not be aware of the current problems Muslims in China arefacing.Several years prior to this people in these states reported that thegovernment had started an information campaign against fasting. Thesesponsored messages were supposed to be ‘proving’ that fasting isdangerous and unhealthy.

Theaim in this case was to spread uncertainty about a practice that is acornerstone of Muslim peoples faith.

Howapplicable these tactics are to your story depends on the henchman’sbackground and how much he (broadly speaking) agreed with the villainbefore hand. She may not have try and make him feel uncertain if hedoesn’t have strong objections to what she does and alreadyfeels isolated from his previous community because he’s beentortured. His community’s ‘failure’ to rescue him may havealready created a lot of uncertainty about the place he used to holdin society and the people he used to be surrounded by.

Repetitionis pretty simple, we tend to see repeated points as more credibleeven when there isn’t data behind them. So long as the villain andthose around her are repeating the messages she wants the henchman tohear that will reinforce them.

Thefinal point involves trying to trigger intense emotional responsesaround both the things the villain wants the henchman to relate toand the things she wants him to abandon.

It’sframing things in ways that make logic go out the window and pushemotional buttons instead.

Takethe earlier example of isolating the henchman from friends and family‘for their safety’. If the henchman questions this a possible wayof using emotional responses would be to jump from something like-‘Well I understand your points but surely I could just tell themI’m still alive?’

Toresponses like- ‘God after every thing I’ve risked and sacrificedto keep you safe you want to put usin danger?’

‘Whydon’t you trust me?’

‘Fine.Get them killed. I’m just trying to look out for you.’

Notethat all of these responses derail the conversation. None of themaddress the actual point of the question, they just reframe theargument in a way that’s aiming to get a reaction, whilereinforcing the messages the villain is trying to send:

‘I’mthe only one who can take care of you.’

‘I’mthe only one protecting you.’

‘Youshould put your faith in me not other people.’

Andso forth.

Giventhe situation you’ve outlined it would be perfectly natural for thehenchman to feel indebted to the villain, even without any of thisbeing used to manipulate him.

Butindebtedness will only go so far. Depending on the characters and howmuch they have in common it could be more than enough for thescenario you want.

Butif you want to make their relationship more obviously unhealthy andcoercive, then introducing manipulative ICURE elements is a realisticway to do that while still having a character who is completelydevoted to the villain.

Hedoesn’t have to view her as the best or nicest person in the world(though that might help), he just needs to see her as better than hisalternatives options.

Ifyou have the henchman changing his views after torture then be sureto lay the ground work for that change. Show a natural progression,with doubts or a lack of deep thought about his opinions beforetorture. If you like show the villain manipulating those doubts laterin an attempt to reach an outcome that suits her.

Butthat might not be necessary. Think about whether the character reallyhad a strong belief against violence or loyalty to groups the villainis fighting before he was tortured.

ICUREdoesn’t create loyalty or affection, what it can create is relianceand (over long periods) shifts in views. It doesn’t ‘work’ overnight and it’s not completely reliable. But this kind ofmanipulation canresult in genuine cooperation while torture can’t.

Ithink you need to decide how healthy you want the relationshipbetween the henchman and the villain to be and howmanipulative/creepy you’re comfortable with writing it.

Buthopefully this post gives you enough information for you to choosewhat you’d like to do. :)

Edit: Just wanted to acknowledge that commenters are correct these tactics do get used in more conventional settings, sometimes with good intent. They are just a tool, a tool that’s often used to abuse. But that doesn’t mean there’s no possible ‘good’ use for ICURE or that political parties etc don’t attempt to use it to get votes or change policy. 

Mustard gas was the first successful cancer treatment. Awful things can sometimes be put to good use. 

(cont) through this but I am not sure how many exactly, or if it's even realistic at all for some 'core members' to stay longer (100-600 years for who I have in mind) and what their behavior would be like? Would they try to convince others to stay with them? Would it be possible to keep them 'loyal' like this with the ongoing threat of murder and being hunted by all three organizations? Another question would be if I should include something like a 'punishment camp' (2/?)(cont.) which would be separate from the organizations and something that would be run 'together' by often changing volunteers who get special privileges in exchange for torturing the inmates who get send there. These inmates can come from all organizations (torturer and victim are never from the same) who have rebelled 'a little' and do not warrant murder yet. My idea is that they'd be sent there for a week to a month and tortured repeatedly through their time there. Would (3/?)(cont.) this, together with public shaming (scars left are visible and raised as consequence of being bad, filthy, improper or similar and thus mark the person for a long time) would it work to scare others in the organization? Would it work to manipulate at least a few of the (younger and more vulnerable) members who were victims of this? Or would it have the opposite effect? Would there even be any volunteers? Sorry for writing so much but I'm really stuck on this (4/4) 

I can understand why you feel stuck. And I can see why you’ve structuredthe story and world in this way. But if the goal is (as far as possible)obedience I think you’re focusing on the wrong things.

 It’s not that I think torture wouldn’t fit this setting and story exactly-it’s more that the way you’re currently planning to use it goes against theobedience you’re trying to enforce.

 Torture really isn’t an effective way to enforce discipline. That doesn’t mean people don’t try to useit this way. People try to use torture to achieve a lot of things it justisn’t capable of.

 Basically I think this is one of those premises where you’re going tohave to decide whether using torture so often is necessary for the story. Is the obedience or the abuse moreimportant to the story generally? Because the way I see it you can changethis scenario to create something that would encourage obedience to the point of committing atrocities or you can stick with what you have andaccept that there will be quite a lot of disobedience.

 I don’t see anything wrong with the scenario you’ve outlined: it doesn’tseem to be excusing or downplaying torture in any way. But it wouldn’t be‘effective’ in the way your bad guys want it to be.

 I think the most helpful thing I can do here is answer your questionsbased on the scenario you’ve outlined and thentry to outline what a scenario that encouraged obedience and group loyaltywould look like.

 Yes they would lose an awful lot of people. I’m not sure I can put afigure on how many exactly but my best guess (based on the rate of suicide andescape by enslaved people in Brazil) would be up to 1/3 every year. If you’repicturing everyone who has ever died in this scenario then a third of thepopulation every year builds up to impressive numbers pretty quickly.

 That said I do think you could realistically havepeople stay in these organisations in the long term. There are two main ways Ican see to play that: either by having the individual character want to stay or by having them believethat there’s no point trying to leave.

 People will often stay in awful situations when they believe that tryingto leave will make things worse. But it’s important not to treat this as onesettled decision. It’s a state of flux. Characters who are motivated in thisway would be likely to leave orrebel, they’re just waiting for the moment when they think they’ll have thebest chance of doing it successfully. Any shift at any time that gives them abetter chance could easily be taken as their opportunity to rebel.

 Having a character want tostay requires positive reinforcement over threat. Agreeing with group ideologywould help but above that the characters need to be getting something from theorganisation they’re in. Privileges, goods, special treatment, comradery-something that they would lose ifthey left.

 Think about….Kylo Ren from the recent Star Wars films. He’s one of thebad guys and he’s embedded in their organisation. The films go out of their wayto show that he has major doubts about what he’s doing, regrets a lot of hisawful actions and doesn’t necessarily agree with most of the people within thegroup.

 But the group gives him powerover other people. Leaving the group and doing what he knows to be right meansabandoning that power. And time and again we see him rejecting opportunities toleave even though he’s unhappy where he is. (Note that this willingness tosacrifice his morality in exchange for power tells us quite a bit about hischaracter.)

 The behaviour of someone who chooses to stay would vary depending ontheir personality and well- their motivation for staying. Someone who isstaying out of fear might encourageothers to stay for their own safety. But they might also encourage others toleave, to see if they could succeed or to live vicariously through theescapees. Someone who actually believes in the organisation might encouragepeople to stay and ‘do the right thing’- but they might also encourage peopleto leave just to test their loyalty.

 So in terms of how they interact with characters whose ‘loyalty’ iswavering, I think you’ve got a lot of scope to decide.

 Generally speaking is the threat of murder and torture is really the only factor then no, that’s notenough to keep people loyal.

 Fear…isn’t as powerful as people tend to think. The threat of harm doesn’t generally result in long termobedience, though it might result in short term compliance. If one characterthreatens to shoot another the victim might well do what the person with thegun asks but they’ll probably be looking for a way to get away and none of uswould expect them to be ‘loyal’ or obedient when the gun is taken away.

 That said I think you should seriously think about whether threats arethe only factor in this scenario.But threats are rarely going tobe the only factor.

 Think about things like physical security: food, water, shelter andsense of safety. Do any of the organisations provide any of those things andwould those things be in question if a character left? How about positivein-group interaction? Friendships, mentorships, romantic relationships- theseare things we need and people willstay in situations that are awful for them because a friend is there too.

 If there are no positive in group interactions then I think you need toseriously consider why that’s the case. Because generally a bunch of peopledropped in an awful situation at roughly the same social level will bond overit (caveat- mass starvation is often an exception see also Russian linguisticdistinction between ‘corpse eating’ and ‘cannibal’).

 If there’s little in the way of physical security, no benefits to groupmembership, no strong social bonds anda lot of violent threats- I think people would vote with their feet. They’d getup and leave. Not necessarily in an organised way, this doesn’t has to mean a Palmarestype situation with parallel societies (Brazil, mostly escaped slaves), itcould be much less sophisticated like the gangs of rough-sleeping wanderingyouths common in Britain in the 1700s (mostly fleeing abusive parents,employers or masters).

 I think the sort of ‘punishment camps’ you’re outlining do fit the sort of setting you’redescribing. However in terms of theeffects they’d have……….they would probably radicalise everyone directlyinvolved with them. They mightincrease fear in the general population but that does not necessarily lead toobedience and-

 Well let me unpack the effects I think they’d have.

 One of the really interesting observations Rejali makes about civilianpopulations in areas where torture is commonly going on is the tendency towards…it’snot exactly ‘victim blaming’ but the thinking is similar. Basically there is amarked tendency among people in these areas to assume that if someone is taken away and tortured they actually did break the rules in some way. This doesn’t mean they think the rules are ‘right’,that they think torture is justified or that they assume the person is aviolent criminal.

 The thought process goes something like ‘they’ve arrested him for beingpart of a criminal gang….well he did usedto hang out with all those bad kids after school- He did spend a lot of timeonline- He must have had someconnection to these criminals even if it was only tenuous- Right?’

 This thought process is a sort of mental self defence. By tellingthemselves that it isn’t random thatthere is some cause civilians areable to convince themselves that this wouldnot happen to them. That their actions can prevent it happening.

 But this is not how torture works.

 The assumption that the people in charge of these camps would alwayspick up ‘guilty’ people is deeply flawed.

 For starters when torture is an ingrained part of the system spontaneousreporting from members of the public drops.The justice system loses possibly themost important source of information: ordinary civilians.

 In contrast malicious accusations seemto rise. Which means that you have your cross-organisational ‘cops’ hearingless accusations aimed at people who are actually ‘guilty’ and more accusations aimed at people who areinnocent but disliked.

 This is just one factor that leads to torturers targeting more innocentpeople then ‘guilty’ ones (in your story I think it would be the biggestfactor).

 Torture of these innocent people is going to give them a reason to rebel. At the same time it will enable themto establish cross-organisational contacts with other wrongly-accused peopleand the occasion genuine rebel.

 So these punishment camps would function to make the resistance stronger. Because they will be creatingmore rebels, reinforcing the beliefs of existing rebels and acting as a forumfor both groups to meet and organise themselves better.

 Public shaming on return to ‘normal’ life would probably only serve toreinforce hatred of and resistance to the system. Purely because it’s immediately following torture.

 Would it scare other members of the organisation? Very possibly. People who are nottortured and don’t know anyone who was will assume there was a reason eachindividual was picked out. They’ll assume they were guilty. And for some people that will encourageobedience.

 For others it will encourage dissent.

 It will certainly stop the vast majority of people from reporting on anyrule breaking, especially if the ‘guilty’ character is someone they care about.

 It will also encourage rebellion in anyone who was close to a victim.Again this is strengthening resistance movements by furthering recruitment.

 There’s also the way we tend to respond to torture. We have…..visceralnegative reactions to seeing other people in distress or pain. These areautomatic responses wired into our brains. We can’t turn them off.

 Publically parading victims who have obviously and visibly been torturedwould serve as a recruitment tool for resistance organisations. Because asignificant portion of the audience would not only have an automaticsympathetic response to the victim but would also be willing to act on it.

 Some people would be scared ormanipulated into inaction. But every single step of this is encouraging dissentand those numbers would build up.

 Whether people would volunteer to be torturers- The honest answer isthat I don’t know. I’m unaware of any systematic research on historicaltorturers, which is the situation I think would be closest to what you’redescribing.

 England’s more recent historical executioners were certainlyprofessionals who only performed this role. But they also didn’t always choosethe role; some took it up to prevent being executed themselves, some inherited theposition.

 And by that point they were nottorturers. In the time periods where torture was a big feature of the ‘justice’system the entire system was….not very organised and mostly functioned on anad-hoc basis. The equivalent of police, the judges- they were things people didoccasionally around their ‘main’ job. Torturers could well have functioned on asimilar basis and I’d have to do more historical research to be sure.

 In a modern context torturers aren’t really recruited by volunteering:people are screened prior to recruitment into organisations and are thenpressured into torture by sub-groups of torturers within the largerorganisation. Which isn’t the same asasking a large group of random people for volunteers- the official screeningprocess every step of the way to get into organisations, followed by the socialscreening process instigated by the torturers themselves, that probablyincreases the ‘success’ rate during recruitment.

 I imagine that there would be somevolunteers but the group you’d get volunteering would probably be hugelydemographically different to modern torturers. They’dstill develop the same side effects as other torturers.

 If they volunteered purely because of benefits they might receive,without fully understanding the nature of what they’d have to do or theconsequences this could also resultin more recruitment for resistance movements with former torturers rejectingthe organisations as well.

 Consider whether you want this level of rebellion and dissent in yourstory and how that would effect the social structures both within theorganisations and outside them. Think about how it would effect your plot.

 There are changes you could make that would probably increase obediencewithin the groups.

 Firstly there have to be some major positives to group membership.People have to get something goodfrom these groups and be aware of what they’d lose without the groups.

 Strong in-group social ties would have to be encouraged. Good behaviourwould need to have obvious rewards.

 Torture and murder would have to be rarer.

 The organisations would have to be isolated from each other as well asthe resistance movements. Cross group contact would encourage people to emphasisewith members of different groups.

 They’d essentially need to have some sort of ICURE program. That means apattern of psychological manipulation: Isolate the person, Control their accessto information, plant Uncertainty about prior beliefs, use Repetition toreinforce the beliefs and values the organisation wants to instil, andmanipulate Emotions in order to further reinforce those values.

 So people would need to be heavily isolated from other groups and subjected to a well organisedpropaganda campaign. Something highly emotive, repeated and impossible toignore which would create and reinforce their opinion of the other organisationsand the resistance.

 This would help reinforce the idea that they are better off where they are. It would teach them the other groups are‘worse’ and the resistance organisations are complete monsters.

 Public shaming without anyphysical injury would take the place of most of the torture you’ve planned.It would be the main go-to punishment for minor infractions. I’d suggestsomething similar to the group recriminations used in China in the recent past.Having a group of people surround the criminal and take turns to berate themfor their flaws and ‘sins’ at length. This could go on for hours.

 You add to this by having it recorded in some way and having thehighlights broadcast more generally to group members so that everyone surroundingthe ‘criminal’ knows exactly what they’ve done and they face constant publiccensure in the aftermath of their ‘crime’.

 If you wanted to keep thepunishment camps here’s what I’d suggest.

 Reduce the number of people put in them and increase the severity of the ‘crime’ necessary to make it possible.

 Do not make the group membership of the torturers or victims random.

 Instead have camps run by group 2 with victims only from group 3.Instead of having the victims knowthey’re going to be sent to a place like this have the victims and generalpublic told these group 3 ‘criminals’ have been sentenced to a ‘good group 3jail’. Their mass transport is then ‘attacked’ by group 2 and the prisoners areput in a ‘normal group 2 prison’ which is eventually ‘liberated’ by good group3 people.

 This would serve to confuse the story considerably. The message thissends isn’t that the in-group doeshorrible things to criminals: it’s that the othergroups are so much worse than us and oh god can you imagine what it must belike to live in those groups? Aren’t we all so glad to be part of wonderfulgroup 3 instead of awful group 2. Those savages. It’s a good thing they usuallyonly manage to kidnap prisoners being transported isn’t it? Can you imagine howawful it would be if normal peoplehad to go that close to group 2 territory?

 And so forth.

 Some of the prisoners might fall for this ruse and their animosity wouldbe directed at out groups instead oftheir own group. It might serve to make them more loyal to their own group inthe long run.

 Others probably wouldn’t fallfor the ruse but it would be incredibly easy to dismiss them as fantasists andconspiracy theorists.

 Aaaaand this has been an incredibly long answer. I hope it’s helpful andgets you thinking about what’s important to this world and ways you couldstructure the world to emphasise what’s most important to the story. :)