Which is Worse? Scientology or Psychiatry . . .

[pineapple]

Well the thing that Scientology wants you to not realize in a debate like this is that if psychiatry is a fraud, then so is Scientology, because that is what it is - it IS psychiatry - although a rather outdated and superficial "Freudian" form of it - but ESSENTIALLY it is the same. Which isn't to say that if a scientologist couldn't help you then neither can a psychiatrist. Because as has been said, there are always some bad apples, and while Scientology wants you to believe that all the bad apples are among psychiatrists, that isn't how it is, because you have good and bad people in every group of people - it's just that in Scientology, their leader is one of the bad apples, whereas in psychiatry there is no single leader, so you can always go to someone else. And it isn't like Scientology claims that psychiatry would be all about prescribing drugs. Have you ever seen a Scientologist prescribe a single drug? Yet all of what Scientologists do is simple based on (Hubbard's superficial understanding of) Freud. If you are so afraid of being prescribed medicine, then go to a psychologist instead of a psychiatrist and you can be sure to never ever be prescribed a single pill either.

Dianetics, which is part of scn, superficially resembles psychoanalysis, but the rest of scn processing is nothing like it at all. Sorry, but your statement that all of what Scientologists do is based on Freud is completely incorrect.

Even the resemblance between psychoanalysis and dianetics is superficial. In psychoanalysis you "free associate," i.e. talk about whatever comes into your head. (This is the essential feature of psychoanalysis, completely absent in dianetics.) Free association inevitably leads to talking about traumatic experiences, but in psychoanalysis the traumatic incidents are only part of the process. In dianetics "erasing" these incidents is the whole thing -- and the incidents are likely to be from other lifetimes and (I now think, probably) imaginary.

I spent about 7 years in scn and was a permanent Class IV auditor and a Dn "Clear." I both gave and received dn and scn auditing. I also had about 2 1/2 years of psychoanalysis several years after getting out of scn. Having experienced both, I feel qualified to compare them. I found psychoanalysis infinitely more worthwhile.

 

[Teanntás]

Dianetics, which is part of scn, superficially resembles psychoanalysis, but the rest of scn processing is nothing like it at all. Sorry, but your statement that all of what Scientologists do is based on Freud is completely incorrect.

Even the resemblance between psychoanalysis and dianetics is superficial. In psychoanalysis you "free associate," i.e. talk about whatever comes into your head. (This is the essential feature of psychoanalysis, completely absent in dianetics.) Free association inevitably leads to talking about traumatic experiences, but in psychoanalysis the traumatic incidents are only part of the process. In dianetics "erasing" these incidents is the whole thing -- and the incidents are likely to be from other lifetimes and (I now think, probably) imaginary.

I spent about 7 years in scn and was a permanent Class IV auditor and a Dn "Clear." I both gave and received dn and scn auditing. I also had about 2 1/2 years of psychoanalysis several years after getting out of scn. Having experienced both, I feel qualified to compare them. I found psychoanalysis infinitely more worthwhile.

"A poll released in May, "Therapy in America 2004," and co-sponsored by Psychology Today magazine and PacifiCare Behavioral Health, found that an estimated 59 million people have received mental health treatment in the past two years, and that 80 percent of them have found it effective."

http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/survey.aspx

 

[The_Fixer]

Hasn't psychoanalysis been discredited by the psychiatrists and is no longer used as a tool?

EDITED to add: Just found this link:

https://www.quora.com/I-have-heard-Freuds-theories-are-discredited-but-why

Briefly, it says that he started a system off that was inherently flawed, but it got the ball rolling for scientific study to take over. It hasn't so much been discredited, but replaced by something better and more proven namely Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. Plus other stuff.

 

[pineapple]

Hasn't psychoanalysis been discredited by the psychiatrists and is no longer used as a tool?

EDITED to add: Just found this link:

https://www.quora.com/I-have-heard-Freuds-theories-are-discredited-but-why

Briefly, it says that he started a system off that was inherently flawed, but it got the ball rolling for scientific study to take over. It hasn't so much been discredited, but replaced by something better and more proven namely Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. Plus other stuff.

I had mine in the 1980's. I know it's no longer considered the gold standard, but I believe you can still find it if you look. Cognitive therapy may be better, I dunno, never had that. I liked psychoanalysis a lot.

I think the same therapy is not for everyone. One person may do better with one modality, somebody else with another. Unlike scientology, it's not a "one size fits all" thing.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

Sorry, I don't buy the "All psychs are EVIL!!!!!" bullshit. That's Hubbard's absolutism.

I don't buy in to the "All psychs are EVIL!" position either.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

Well the thing that Scientology wants you to not realize in a debate like this is that if psychiatry is a fraud, then so is Scientology, because that is what it is - it IS psychiatry - although a rather outdated and superficial "Freudian" form of it - but ESSENTIALLY it is the same. Which isn't to say that if a scientologist couldn't help you then neither can a psychiatrist. Because as has been said, there are always some bad apples, and while Scientology wants you to believe that all the bad apples are among psychiatrists, that isn't how it is, because you have good and bad people in every group of people - it's just that in Scientology, their leader is one of the bad apples, whereas in psychiatry there is no single leader, so you can always go to someone else. And it isn't like Scientology claims that psychiatry would be all about prescribing drugs. Have you ever seen a Scientologist prescribe a single drug? Yet all of what Scientologists do is simple based on (Hubbard's superficial understanding of) Freud. If you are so afraid of being prescribed medicine, then go to a psychologist instead of a psychiatrist and you can be sure to never ever be prescribed a single pill either.

If you please Mister Goldstein, Scientology is most certainly NOT psychiatry. Just for a primary and conclusive point Scientology addresses the individual as a spirit

 

[strativarius]

If you please Mister Goldstein, Scientology is most certainly NOT psychiatry. Just for a primary and conclusive point Scientology addresses the individual as a spirit

No mate, scientology addresses the individual as a unwary sucker who is there to hand over all of his money, at which point the scientologists have no further use for him/her.

 

[pineapple]

No mate, scientology addresses the individual as a unwary sucker who is there to hand over all of his money, at which point the scientologists have no further use for him/her.

Once they've got all the "charge" off the case.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

Once they've got all the "charge" off the case.

Yes...

And emptied his bank.

 

[The_Fixer]

I had mine in the 1980's. I know it's no longer considered the gold standard, but I believe you can still find it if you look. Cognitive therapy may be better, I dunno, never had that. I liked psychoanalysis a lot.

I think the same therapy is not for everyone. One person may do better with one modality, somebody else with another. Unlike scientology, it's not a "one size fits all" thing.

Thank link I posted prior says that psychoanalysis was founded in a flawed study (by Freud). But it got the other guys working on things, so it was a step in the right direction.
In a more scientifically studied process, CBT was found to achieve better overall results and help teach the patient how to work things out on their own more constructively. Thus psychoanalysis faded into the background, as it didn't always get very far.
This paints the picture that psychiatry is not afraid to evolve as further study finds better ways based on emerging evidence. It is a fluid system.
It is not a science of absolutes as scientology is, which it is heresy to change a single letter of anything.

As for being based in evil, I think scientology takes the crown there.

Psychiatry back in the day was not a shining light of salvation by any means, but I believe they had basically good intentions even though they got a lot of things wrong too. A lot has changed now and even they realise there is still a long way to go.

I believe that Hubbard was declared nuts by these guys and he didn't believe them because it affronted his ego. So he set out to prove them wrong by making them out to be the enemy. With Hubbard, there was no middle ground, you were either his disciple or the enemy. Nothing else.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

No mate, scientology addresses the individual as a unwary sucker who is there to hand over all of his money, at which point the scientologists have no further use for him/her.

You are accurately reporting conduct frequently displayed by Co$ organizations

I am a student of Hubbard's work as it addresses the human as a spiritual being. I am not now guilty of any allegations which are levied against Hubbard or CoS nor did I participate in any such conduct from 1971-1974 when I was a student in San Francisco nor when I was posted as a Staff Staff Auditor at FCDC

I am a professing Christian and neither am I guilty of Burning heretics at the stake, the Spanish Inquisition or the bigotry of the Westwood Baptist Church. As I have noted, I was verbally vested with a diplomatic portfolio by an operative of the CIA back in 1980 so maybe you can rack me up for The Crusades...

 

[Type4_PTS]

You are accurately reporting conduct frequently displayed by Co$ organizations

I am a student of Hubbard's work as it addresses the human as a spiritual being. I am not now guilty of any allegations which are levied against Hubbard or CoS nor did I participate in any such conduct from 1971-1974 when I was a student in San Francisco nor when I was posted as a Staff Staff Auditor at FCDC

I am a professing Christian and neither am I guilty of Burning heretics at the stake, the Spanish Inquisition or the bigotry of the Westwood Baptist Church. As I have noted, I was verbally vested with a diplomatic portfolio by an operative of the CIA back in 1980 so maybe you can rack me up for The Crusades...

You act as though Co$ organizations have nothing to do with Hubbard's work.

All the criminal activity and abusive actions originating within CoS is a result of Hubbard's writings. All of it. He is the creator of all the policies that indoctrinate Scientologists in such a way so they believe they're acting ethically when they seek to destroy another human being, cover up rapes, abuse of children, and disconnect from their own children, parents, siblings, lifelong friends.

 

[scooter]

Finally tempted to post something here after months of being too busy to do anything but the occasional lurk:

Having extensive history with the cult I feel I can comment with some authority on it (and have in the past :smile

Over the last several years I've had a fair bit of experience with the various mental health professions so I'll comment on my interactions with them.

The "dreaded psyches" that I've interacted with here in Oz have been a diverse group that had different ideas and different strategies for coping with situations, CBT seeming to be the most effective per the users.

I've seen NO evidence of a conspiracy per se for drug companies but I have seen a reasoned approach to using drugs as part of an overall strategy to get someone to the point of control over the worst of their mental issues. And seen this used to great effectiveness on a close family member to a great result. Fuck you OSA ANZO but you don't get more specifics that that.

On a very personal level, when I left the cult (coming up to 10 years ago this year - ) I had no tools for coping with life other than the crap that "we" all learnt from rampant Hubbardian brainfarts. So I've had to learn from real science what it is to be a successful human. I've had my share of ups and downs in that time. Some very black periods indeed.

But it's been generally a steady upward progression toward actually being a real dad and husband and I have a son who starts into university this year and a daughter who's going well in her life as a teenager and a relationship with my wife that's better now after 20 years of marriage than it's ever been. I've had personal counselling through some rough periods that I wouldn't have survived otherwise - literally. Those of you who know my history via "scooterstory" here and/or personal interaction will know what I mean. "Haunted" is a mild term to describe it.

So Rog my friend I have absolutely no doubt that the cult is to psyches as Hitler is to Mother Teresa. The latter may have grevious faults and stupidities and even individuals who are rampant psychos but the overall difference is so huge as to be incomparable. At least in my experience. This cult cost me 2 kids. I still have 2 thanks to "psyches" who have been able to undo the plain evil that Hubbard inflicted on us.

 

[The_Fixer]

I've read some pretty concerning stuff about Mother Teresa and her motives, but I have to admit most of it comes from Christopher Hitchens.

My cause for concern is that Hitchens is such a rabid atheist and seems to have many axes to grind which makes me take a fair bit of what he says with a grain of salt unless I hear similar things other from reputable sources. He may have his points, however I have cautions about rabid 'anti' types. They may be telling the truth, but passionate entanglements often lead up other garden paths at times. Watching Hitchens in videos puffing away on cigarettes and drinking (what looks like Scotch Whiskey) in public presentations isn't a good sign to start with.

One may also argue that we have people like this on ESMB, but the difference is that there are many sources citing the same stories that reinforce each other.

Or am I just becoming yet another old cynic?

 

[I told you I was trouble]

I've read some pretty concerning stuff about Mother Teresa and her motives, but I have to admit most of it comes from Christopher Hitchens.

My cause for concern is that Hitchens is such a rabid atheist and seems to have many axes to grind which makes me take a fair bit of what he says with a grain of salt unless I hear similar things other from reputable sources. He may have his points, however I have cautions about rabid 'anti' types. They may be telling the truth, but passionate entanglements often lead up other garden paths at times. Watching Hitchens in videos puffing away on cigarettes and drinking (what looks like Scotch Whiskey) in public presentations isn't a good sign to start with.

One may also argue that we have people like this on ESMB, but the difference is that there are many sources citing the same stories that reinforce each other.

Or am I just becoming yet another old cynic?

I read his book about Mother Teresa too ("The Missionary Position") it was pretty shocking and he certainly pointed out some very negative traits and underhanded dealings but as I recall, they were always backed up with facts.

I really appreciated and liked him and wish he was still here, he never did do PC and we need more intelligent people to point out the BS and in many cases the fear tactics that emanate from religions across the boards. He was one of the best at doing that, he was fearless and very clear when he argued his well researched points ... he was funny too.

RIP Hitch.

 

[Soul of Ginnungagab]

For years, even psychiatrists have been blowing the whistle on this hazy crazy process of “research.”

That tells a lot.

Well, in case it doesn't tell you a lot let me elaborate: It tells that psychiatrists have the freedom to blow whistles, they can protest, they can disagree with matters that they find wrong; discussions can happen and may even be recommended. So which is worse, an organization that frowns upon such rebellious behavior or a field where there is room and space for such matters?

***

 

[The_Fixer]

I tend to be a little cautious of the opinions and facts from alcoholics. They often tend to have a loose relationship with truth and honesty from my experiences with them and I've known an awful lot of them. They also make quite a lot of stories up to validate themselves. Alcohol abuse often affects people's ability to think and act clearly. That's why when I look at his videos, my shields come up. It doesn't look professional or convincing.

Having said all that, I'm not necessarily saying he is dishonest. Winston Churchill was a mighty alcoholic too, look at the trust he earned. It's how I've learned to look at alcoholics and druggies until proven otherwise. That's my thing.

I'm still trying to decide how much of his evidence is objective or subjective.

On the positive side though, it is good to see him challenging the established order and disciplines to get them to prove their intentions and actions and to expose abuses. A lot of what he points out I have no doubt is correct, but some of his conclusions are made purely from an atheistic viewpoint, which does not cross over into a believer's point of view. The two viewpoints are worlds apart and neither understands the other. Nor do they want to.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

I tend to be a little cautious of the opinions and facts from alcoholics. They often tend to have a loose relationship with truth and honesty from my experiences with them and I've known an awful lot of them. They also make quite a lot of stories up to validate themselves. Alcohol abuse often affects people's ability to think and act clearly. That's why when I look at his videos, my shields come up. It doesn't look professional or convincing.

Having said all that, I'm not necessarily saying he is dishonest. Winston Churchill was a mighty alcoholic too, look at the trust he earned. It's how I've learned to look at alcoholics and druggies until proven otherwise. That's my thing.

I'm still trying to decide how much of his evidence is objective or subjective.

On the positive side though, it is good to see him challenging the established order and disciplines to get them to prove their intentions and actions and to expose abuses. A lot of what he points out I have no doubt is correct, but some of his conclusions are made purely from an atheistic viewpoint, which does not cross over into a believer's point of view. The two viewpoints are worlds apart and neither understands the other. Nor do they want to.

That's fair enough ...I'm cautious with all opinions, including my own (lol) but he did print a pertinent document/s in the book mentioned above (from memory) and as far as I know the catholic church didn't do anything serious to try and counter it which led me to think it was probably accurate (and genuine) at the time.

I didn't know he was a known alcoholic (I knew he died of throat cancer) but I do recall the awful, spite filled things that were said to him by moralising, sanctimonious, religion loving monsters who were jeering at him as his died a truly awful death and I was disgusted.

 

[The_Fixer]

Thanks Trouble. There is a fair amount of debate about him being one. My judgement is that if you cannot do without it and you drink inappropriately, then you definitely have a problem. Most likely you are an alcoholic. The level of sobriety is somewhat irrelevant. Alcoholics come up with all sorts of excuses to normalise their habits.

Nothing wrong with a drink or two, just what control it has over you is the question. Hitchens certainly had a drinking problem.

A bit of background about him: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...a-sober-perception-however-much-he-drank.html

I would think he was always sober because he was such a seasoned drinker. I doubt he would have been able to pass any breath tests.

I do remember the movie about the English lady (a social worker) who came to Western Australia and exposed the abuses of the Catholic priests on young boys who were stolen from England. Good Catholics everywhere really turned on her too.

That story about the children here:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-land-of-lost-children-20110611-1fy4w.html

http://www.smh.com.au/national/i-can-still-hear-the-kids-screams-20110611-1fyap.html

I used to work with one of those former kids. Said things, but not a lot. It was pretty obvious it still affected him.

I am no supporter of the Catholic Church, but I sort of understand their thinking. It isn't quite as simple as Hitchens makes it out to be, but he isn't exactly wrong either. Your viewpoint would depend on how you can see another person's way of thinking.

Stephen Fry made his case in this speech he did some years back, said it well:

I still sometimes wonder which one of scientology or the catholics were the bigger evil.

 

[Gib]

One of my neighbors from down the street is a well-regarded psychiatrist, who
has probably practiced for around 40-45 years. He walks his dogs past my house
every evening.

Being curious, one day I asked him if he did "talk therapy" anymore. His answer
was, "they want us to use drugs nowadays." I assume he's 100% moved on from
talk therapy. It was a telling comment.

I didn't get to ask him who the "they" were and where he took his cues from and how
this all works. I'd like to know. I'll quiz him longer one day when we chat in the street.

But Teanntás, I think you're right.

I'd probably ask him if they promoted "clear" and the "OT"

LOL