Talk:Tavistock Institute

Herschel, I noticed you had wikified the Tavistock entry on the Death of Jeremiah Duggan page, which made me take a look here.

Could you name and provide a link for the Tavistock-affiliated website you mention in paragraph three so that the quote is attributed?

Although that was Weed's quote, I googled a portion of it and found the source readily enough. --Herschelkrustofsky 22:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also, are there any critics of the Tavistock other than LaRouche-associated people who claim it's involved in mind control and social engineering? I had never heard these claims before you mentioned them during our Duggan dispute. Slim 21:00, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Weed's second external link provides a veritable galaxy of such charges, although I think it should be replaced with individual links rather than a google search, so that we can separate the wheat from the chaff. --Herschelkrustofsky 22:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Herschel and/or Weed, could you provide a citation for all quotes and all claims about "critics," as this strikes me as LaRouche propaganda. He wrote about this in 1974 and all these other (mad, in my view) websites are just parroting what he wrote. Can you provide a critic who is not a conspiracy theorist and definitely not associated with Lyndon LaRouche or his ideas.

Herschel, the link you provided for the quote says "entry denied." Slim 22:28, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know why that is. You have added a footnote to the same website (Tavistock & Portman NHS Trust) later in the article. At any rate, I restored the quote,and the footnote link is working fine now. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:21, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Enforcement request re: supporters of Lyndon LaRouche

I am writing to request enforcement of the Arbitration Committee's decisions that (1) "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed . . . not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche; and that (2) "Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense." These decisions can be read here.

User:Herschelkrustofsky and User:Weed Harper have created an article on the Tavistock Institute. This is an organization in London, England that was founded in the 1920s to promote the interests of psychology and psychiatry. Over the years, it has offered psychotherapy to British people through its related Tavistock Clinic; has worked with the British government and European Union to develop mental health policies; and has financially supported mental-health related publications through its own publishing house. It is an institution that is highly regarded by psychologists and psychiatrists in the UK. It is arguably the most highly regarded mental health institute in the UK. Its website is here.

In 1974, Lyndon LaRouche published an article accusing the Tavistock of being involved in mind control. That article can be found here (warning: slow download). Since then, the LaRouche view of the Tavistock has developed in countless articles and speeches and is therefore hard to summarize. However, he appears to believe that the Tavistock is involved in mind control in order to exert influence over the British people and, I believe, the American people. The Tavistock, LaRouche maintains, has worked with successive British and American governments to achieve this, and in particularly with the British Army and intelligence services. An example of Tavistock success is the Beatles pop group, he says. They were fashioned by Tavistock-related people and controlled by intelligence agencies. I believe the allegation is that Beatles songs had certain key ideas deliberately inserted into them that governments wanted young people to believe.

In an article I recently created called Death of Jeremiah Duggan, Herschelkrustofsy and Weed Harper tried to insert some of LaRouche's ideas about the Tavistock, claiming it was relevant. That article is not the subject of this request, as we have settled that dispute as a result of compromise. However, I have now discovered that, in addition to trying to insert these views on the Tavistock into Jeremiah Duggan, the same users have created a page on the Tavistock Institute. The page is in its infancy, but one sentence already mentions mind control and social engineering and "critics" of the Tavistock. I have asked that they provide non-LaRouche attribution for these claims. They have so far only provided the results of a Google search, which produces all the old LaRouche ideas, cited by people on conspiracy websites who are either associated with LaRouche or who believe his ideas.

I ask that the Arbitration Committee find, as a matter of fact, that the sentence in the article Tavistock Institute that mentions mind control and social engineering constitutes "original research" that originated with LaRouche and his movement, and that, by inserting it, users Herschelkrustofsy and Weed Harper are engaged in activity that might be perceived as promotion of Lyndon LaRouche, in contravention of the Committee's rulings. I also ask the Committee to find, as a matter of fact, that these users created the article on the Tavistock for no other reason than to promote the LaRouche ideas on the Tavistock, and that therefore they be asked to refrain from further editing of that article.

The Tavistock Institute is not the only article into which these users are inserting LaRouche-related material. However, I am limiting this request to the Tavistock Institute in the interests of clarity. Slim 23:51, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the article on Tavistock Institute bears little relationship to the activities of the Tavistock Insitute and seem to be mainly derived from LaRouche conceptions. Any user may remove such material, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Proposed_decision#Removal_of_original_work, "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." Should it be re-inserted or an edit war develop, "Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense", see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Proposed_decision#Edit_wars_or_re-insertion_of_original_material. As of now, no one has removed LaRouche derived material from the article Tavistock Institute nor has anyone tried to re-insert it or engaged in an edit war. Fred Bauder 02:25, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

I removed the website link that didn't work, and the quote the link referred to because it's not attributed, and the reference to Sargant because I couldn't find a non-LaRouche-related link showing he was affiliated. I'm not saying he wasn't, just asking that everything be properly attributed, either in the article or, if not appropriate, on the Talk page. Slim 08:53, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

I had heard from some aquaintances about the Tavistock Institute and would like to know the "controversial" aspects of this, just as other subjects have the controversies covered. Please include information in this article about LaRouche and what he said. Just phrase it in the form of "LaRouche believed..." and "Subsequent to LaRouche, others picked up on his ideas and claimed..." I think the majority of people reading about the Tavistock Institute come here to find out about that aspect and to not mention it seems incomplete.

Clinic is not the Institute

The clinic and the institute have been separate for over half a century. Unless there are objections, I suggest untangling them. --Duncan 16:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Big improvement. - Crosbiesmith 17:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. All this stuff on mind control, above, is wild. What is that about? I mean, 12 worshipful academics... how do people get the idea that they are engaged in clinical research into mind control... sixty years after the Institute separated from the Clinic? Wild. --Duncan 18:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Much of what goes on at the institute is secret and part of that secrecy is to put up fronts, which blend in to normal perceptions of what the public expect. After all they are psychologists and best placed for keeping a deceptive clean looking image going.

Now to the business of what the Tavistock institute actually does. It has huge amounts of power throughout the world as consultants to many Fortune 500 companies and affiliations with major academic institutions like Stanford and MIT. To cut a long story short its role is to formulate a kind of standardised global image and ways of using psychology to socially engineer people through their interaction with public institutions.

Things like those ATM messages would most likely have originated from their labs and if you wonder why they all sound the same it invariably comes down to the fact each global company follows the standard Tavistock prescription to the letter. In effect it is more powerful than presidents but it is a secret power, as power generally is.

This unsigned comment is mistaken. Nothning that happens there is secret: almost all the contract work is for the public sector, and this is open record. Their journal is open and public, and so their their masters' degree. Neither the head of the insttitute nor all the staff are psychologists. The institute does not have labs; it has two open plan offices. It's not a clinic or a hospital. If the Fortune 500 really followed its instructions, wouldn't be it larger, much larger? --Duncan 18:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That above comment was from me. Yes I am aware it has a clean professional outside image but not everything is open to public inspection.

It was originally part of the British military researching shell shock according to the official line but it is important to understand the massive importance of psychology in all military matters. They gained a reputation for being leaders in the field and as you know there is no shortage of funding in essential military matters. So in a way it was like a defence contractor but the line between military and civilian control gets very blurred and it has grown into a network which has considerable influence in America and has been quite political if you like.

We are talking about the highest levels of control, such as working with leaders of huge global corporations and so it is the top of the hierarchy and therefore does not need to be very large, just as the head office of a corporation does not need a massive staff. I did actually meet someone who worked there once as an office temp and managed to confirm some of this.

Do you have any references for these claims? I think you are confusing what the LaRouche people way about the Tavistock Clinic for facts about the Institute, a separate organisation. The shell shock research was led by the Tavistock Clinic, not the Institute which was founded decades later. The Institute is not a psychological centre: only two of its staff are psychologists, and neither of those are in the executive team. The institute does no work "with leaders of huge global corporations"; most of its work is with small public sector organisations. PS Please sign your comments with four tilda (~) signs. --Duncan 10:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I’m not generally a follower of LaRouche and I’m aware his work is somewhat controversial but the information on Tavistock is quite widespread and I suppose it leaks out from many sources, such as people who have had professional contact with it.

As for the clinic I’m of the understanding that it was originally known as the Tavistock Clinic in its early days before it became an institute. I did know someone who was recommended for treatment there for psychological problems who came from a very elite family in London. So this was about 40 years ago and it appeared to be along the lines of what Harley Street is in providing medical services to the ultra rich, but specialising in psychiatry.

As for proof, well it’s like a lot of things, unless you are the police and obtain a court order to raid their offices I doubt any of it will be cast iron, but you can deduce how valid the claims are by comparing individual accounts. It does look quite conclusive that this place is far from the entirely innocent account it gives of itself and that it wields substantial political weight. 84.67.153.134 21:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Tavistock Clinic. It exists, and is part of the National Health Service. It treats rich and poor. The Tavistock Institute is a separate organisation. Many of the claims about both organisations are mistaken, however many also ignore the fact that these are two organisation who only share the word Tavistock. Find some sources, and then follow the claims to the facts. --Duncan 09:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning this up, Duncan. It's one of a series of articles that were affected some time ago by Larouche movement editing of Wikipedia. The editors were dealt with eventually, but I had forgotten to come back and fix up this article, and also didn't know anything about the subject matter. Your edits are a vast improvement. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Close to requesting mediation.

I have removed the section below, which was unsourced. I request that the editor provides detailed references. Do not reintroduce this section without winning consensus on the Talk page. --Duncan 16:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The Institute was founded in 1946, by a core group of key figures at the Tavistock Clinic including Henry Dicks, Leonard Browne, Ronald Hargreaves, John Rawlings Rees, Mary Luff and Wilfred Bion with Tommy Wilson as chairman, funded by a grant of 'untied funds' from the Rockefeller Foundation. Other famous names that joined the group later were Jock Sutherland, John Bowlby and Eric Trist. It is notable that many of these founding members of the Tavistock Institute went on to play major roles in world affairs. Brigadier John Rawlings Rees became psychiatrist to Rudolph Hess, Adolf Hitler's deputy, while still attached to the Tavistock, and went on to certify Hess fit for trial at the Nuremburg trials. He later founded the World Federation of Mental Health, part of the United Nations, and became its first President and Director. Jock Sutherland became director of the new post-war Tavistock Clinic, when it became incorporated into the newly established British National Health Service in 1946. Ronald Hargreaves became deputy director of the World Health Organisation. Tommy Wilson became chairman of the Tavistock Institute.

It should be noted that many of the names given to Tavistock bodies have been used more than once throughout the history of the Tavistock. Thus The "Tavistock Clinic", which was once the common name for the parent body, now refers to part of a National Health Service trust, while the "Tavistock Institute", which once did research in many areas and was funded by many sources, is now a charity. The name "Tavistock Instutute of Medical Psychology", which was the name used for the original parent body, is now used to refer to an organisation that grew out of that parent body but now specialised in couples relationships under the section name of the "Tavistock Centre for Couple Relationships". This is a source of much confusion, though the facts can be ascertained from the historical account of the Tavistock by Eric Trist, one time chairman of the Institute [1].

Many famous psychologists and psychiatrists have passed through the Tavistock Institute over the years, and it is well known as the focal point in Britain for Psychoanalysis and the Psychodynamic theories of Sigmund Freud and his followers. Freud himself lived close by during his period in England. Other names associated with the Tavistock are: Melanie Klein, Carl Gustav Jung, J. A. Hadfield, Beckett, Charles Rycroft and R. D. Laing [2].

Ronald Laing came to the Tavistock Institute in 1956 at the invitation of Jock Sutherland to train on a grant. He left in 1965, and went on to develop his own ideas, particularly with regard to Schizophrenia, which he suggested might be a natural, and understandable, curative process, rather than a disease of the mind. His view of schizophrenia, based largely on the concept of Family nexus, were explained in a series of famous books such as Sanity, Madness and the Family. Laing is often associated with the Antipsychiatry movement.''

I belive the section above is mistaken. For example, Laing was on the staff of the Clinic, and not on the staff of the Institute. I understand that it is hard that there are two Tavistock Institutes: one of human relations and the other of psychiatry. However, we must distinguish between them. The place to differentiate between them is in the italicised header. Is there is not enough space, I suggest a disintermidation section at Tavistock movement or Group relations. --Duncan 16:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be wrong to diferentiate them in the header as they are not truly separate bodies and never have been. There are a complicated lines of continuity of personel throughout, such that the names applied at any time are of less significance than the continuity of the work. Ithink you are wrong about Laing and the clinic. He went to the Tavistock Institute to train in Psychoanalysis at the invitation of Jock Sutherland who was director of the Institute. He went into analysis with Charles Rycroft. See [1]. The section above makes no mention of 'work'. It says correctly that he went to train, and such training was not at the clinic, and the people involved were not at the clinic. He may have worked also in the clinic. This reference says that he worked as registrar at the clinic [2]. However, in another reference you will find the sentence 'as a research fellow working within the Tavistock Institute' [3]. He did research with Esterton at the 'Tavistock', but research has always been an activity of the Institute, though it may have involved the patients at the clinic. Since the clinic, post 1948, was NHS funded, it makes no sense that he trained or did research there as I am not aware of the research being NHS funded. --~~