I will email Introvigne about some questions that I have after I have studied some of his works in detail. I have not done that yet.
1. Introvigne write that only a fraction of ex-followers feel manipulated. But he forgets to mention that most ex-members are short time and only peripherally involved. It takes time and deep involvement to find out manipulation. Besides if short-term, peripheral members find out, they will probably be indifferent. But clearly, the opinion of people who were deeply involved for a long time should be given a bigger weight. Did he take this into account in the statistical analysis?
2. He writes that people who came into contact with the anti-cult movement or individuals who fight cults will judge more negatively about cults. He said in an interview that this is due their propaganda.
a. Did he take into account that the same people who fight cults also offer support? I mean, I believe that one of the reasons why people turn to cult fighters is that they want support from like minded people or understand their own experience. This was my reason and that is one of the reasons why I am posting here.
b.And why does he call it propaganda if people have been shown two sides of the story. After all, they already knew the cults' sides of the story. Yes, people will judge more negatively about their experience if they receive information that their guru (in the case of SSB) if a pedophile or a fraud but to call this propaganda is, I think, ridiculous.
c. And if it were mere anti-cult propaganda then the cults could easily rebut it on their website and take away its effect but this is hardly ever the case. Cults rarely give a detailed rebuttal to the accusations by former members. I wonder why.