Were we stupid to join Scientology?

[programmer_guy]

Chris Shelton gives his remarks on this topic (thank you Chris!)

There is the subtopic of "hindsight bias" in this video.
It's not so simple.
For entertainment in general about hindsight I recommend the movie "Groundhog Day" starring Bill Murray (old SNL cast). This hindsight subtopic (amongst other subtopics in this movie) is presented as being very imperfect and sometimes hilarious.

 

[The_Fixer]

Umm, yes. (In reference to the title of this thread).

 

[DagwoodGum]

Depends on what we were in the direst need of.
If you needed all the highest levels of thought that Hubbard could plagiarize and falsify, then you went to the right place.
If you were afforded the time and luxury to self discover things for yourself in life, then you went to the wrong place.
All his little burps of second and third hand wisdom was just bait, came with horrible breath and the chance of you becoming very, very ill on levels you would have to wait decades to realize.

 

[Enthetan]

Not so much stupid, as gullible, in the sense of being in a part of our lives where we really wanted to believe what he was selling.

 

[DagwoodGum]

Not so much stupid, as gullible, in the sense of being in a part of our lives where we really wanted to believe what he was selling.

I think that the stupidity comes into play in staying in Scientology and wearing the blinders they carefully fit you with when you do join.
The ignorance of ignoring all the little clues that things were not as they were being portrayed and that one owed it to oneself to break free and help others do the same could be seen as supreme evidence of supreme stupidity though.

 

[Demented Hubbatd]

I was kind of stupid when I joined Scientology because I thought it was rather strange that the world, including myself, haven't heard anything about LRH the Healer. I should have consulted newspaper articles about Scientology (at that time there was no Internet data about the cult) before deciding to join in the church.

 

[DagwoodGum]

I was kind of stupid when I joined Scientology because I thought it was rather strange that the world, including myself, haven't heard anything about LRH the Healer. I should have consulted newspaper articles about Scientology (at that time there was no Internet data about the cult) before deciding to join in the church.

I was kind of fortunate in that my step-grandmother wintered in the Clearwater area and would send me many of the newspaper articles in the local papers when Land Base was acquired & developed.
All the craziness that the local press was hip to that I otherwise would never have known about, It had to have influenced and awakened me as to what a quagmire I'd wandered into.
It made it easy to walk away from it and difficult not to...

 

[TrevAnon]

Nowadays I can somehow feel sympathy for people joining from Russia and other non English speaking countries.

Also I understand people who were born into it and never had a choice.

That there are still some people joining from countries where people speak English or learn it as a second language (such as the Netherlands) baffles me. It's true there aren't that many anymore, so I guess most of them first google scientology.

 

[RogerB]

It rather depends on when you joined.

In the 1950's, based on the data available . . . and since the man had a credible publisher carry his book that became a major best seller, and based on the promoted credential of a PhD . . . and based on the fact of no publicity critical of the scam and there being no internet spelling out the truth . . . one should validate your judgement based on the data available and the prevailing times.

Remember that the Anderson report of the Melbourne Inquiry was not published till 1965.

It is in hindsight of all the communication about the truth of the scam and of Hubbard's outright lying about who and what he was, that one could come to a more accurate and proper judgment of what the scam is.

The correct answer to this question then becomes, what data/information was available to you at the time of your decision and, did you make a valid decision based on the data available to you. and secondarily, did you ignore any warning signs that were perceived by you.

R

 

[DagwoodGum]

It rather depends on when you joined.

In the 1950's, based on the data available . . . and since the man had a credible publisher carry his book that became a major best seller, and based on the promoted credential of a PhD . . . and based on the fact of no publicity critical of the scam and there being no internet spelling out the truth . . . one should validate your judgement based on the data available and the prevailing times.

Remember that the Anderson report of the Melbourne Inquiry was not published till 1965.

It is in hindsight of all the communication about the truth of the scam and of Hubbard's outright lying about who and what he was, that one could come to a more accurate and proper judgment of what the scam is.

The correct answer to this question then becomes, what data/information was available to you at the time of your decision and, did you make a valid decision based on the data available to you. and secondarily, did you ignore any warning signs that were perceived by you.

R

Plus I don't think it all got crazy till Hubbard himself did, I'm thinking early, mid seventy's.
His obsessive control over everything and everyone didn't become fully manifest till long after Dianetics had garnered so much initial acceptance based upon fraudulent claims that would not come to light till much later.
I think the true "old timers" get a Mulligan on the issue of whether being "stupid" was the issue with their entry into what it was all about in the early days.
I make that assumption as I didn't get exposed to it until 1968 and it wasn't all so bad even by then.
I was alarmed by things starting to come off the rails by the mid 70's from the vantage point of a cash strapped Class IV Org being bled dry by the tightening noose of the Sea Org.
Prior to that time, with those arrogant monthly prices increase on services, one was able to reasonably project his grade chart progress and pay for progressing up the bridge.
Soon it was to cost far more than I was willing to pay without having financial insolvency as my constant companion.
Knowing they just didn't give a shit up-lines was all I needed to know, I was out.
What claim to "enlightenment" could people like those possibly make?

 

[Clay Pigeon]

I was kind of stupid when I joined Scientology because I thought it was rather strange that the world, including myself, haven't heard anything about LRH the Healer. I should have consulted newspaper articles about Scientology (at that time there was no Internet data about the cult) before deciding to join in the church.

I wasn't stupid to join.

In the first place Robert S DeRopp in "The Master Game" particularly with "The Seven Syndromes" innoculated me well against follies CoS and it's adherents often suffer.

And then when I first became interested I spent two days with the Reader's Guide To Periodical Literature at the SF Library going all the way back to 1953 and became apalled at the horsecrap the media was pedaling. Yes, some of the criticism was accurate and there were a few small instances of honest journalism but mostly crap

Today however the miscavage regime seems intent on proving the subjects enemies to be right

 

[Clay Pigeon]

Plus I don't think it all got crazy till Hubbard himself did, I'm thinking early, mid seventy's.
His obsessive control over everything and everyone didn't become fully manifest till long after Dianetics had garnered so much initial acceptance based upon fraudulent claims that would not come to light till much later.
I think the true "old timers" get a Mulligan on the issue of whether being "stupid" was the issue with their entry into what it was all about in the early days.
I make that assumption as I didn't get exposed to it until 1968 and it wasn't all so bad even by then.
I was alarmed by things starting to come off the rails by the mid 70's from the vantage point of a cash strapped Class IV Org being bled dry by the tightening fist of the Sea Org.
Prior to that time with those arrogant monthly prices increase on services one was able to reasonably project and pay for one's progress up the bridge.
Soon it was to cost far more than I was willing to pay without having financial insolvency as my constant companion.
Knowing they just didn't give a shit up-lines was all I needed to know, I was out.
What claim to "enlightenment" could they possibly make?

The development of OTIII and the establishment of the Sea Org in 1968 appear to mark a significant change in The Old Man.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

It rather depends on when you joined.

In the 1950's, based on the data available . . . and since the man had a credible publisher carry his book that became a major best seller, and based on the promoted credential of a PhD . . . and based on the fact of no publicity critical of the scam and there being no internet spelling out the truth . . . one should validate your judgement based on the data available and the prevailing times.

Remember that the Anderson report of the Melbourne Inquiry was not published till 1965.

It is in hindsight of all the communication about the truth of the scam and of Hubbard's outright lying about who and what he was, that one could come to a more accurate and proper judgment of what the scam is.

The correct answer to this question then becomes, what data/information was available to you at the time of your decision and, did you make a valid decision based on the data available to you. and secondarily, did you ignore any warning signs that were perceived by you.

R

Hubbard's lying is nowhere near as bad as it's made out.

Just before I joined staff I worked with The Great Volcane's Magic Show and we were down in Martha's Vineyard at the Methodist campground. The local paper sent a couple young reporters to interview George, our beloved Great Volcane and I smiled warmly at his side as he told them a cock and bull story about his fresh return from a European tour. Just usual show biz PR copy. Hubbard was well familiar and credentialed with show biz PR tech. He was a widely published author and his poetic liscence was in good order and he was a mariner, an old salt a culture well famed for tall tales

I was then and am now interested in the truth he produced. I trained in the academy up to CLIV HGDS and there just wasn't very much garbage on the checksheets.

As a matter of fact, one of the things I was quickly impressed by was reading "Dianetics, The Original Thesis" on the HAS course. DMSMH is a hot air balloon pumped with hyperbole and wild promises but the first thing they did was to present the simple unadorned basics of Dianetics.

Think about that...

I find that impressive and I found human warmth and truthfulness to be fairly strong among my fellows...

And you are one of my favorites here Rog with a remarkable and noble background.

You were Declared eleven times and did A to E ten.

In effect you awarded Kha Khan to LRH and gave the full measure of respect to The Old Man; all ten heads off the totem stick.

Yer my kinda guy Rog, here's to ya!

 

[Bill]

Hubbard's lying is nowhere near as bad as it's made out.
<snip>
As a matter of fact, one of the things I was quickly impressed by was reading "Dianetics, The Original Thesis" on the HAS course. DMSMH is a hot air balloon pumped with hyperbole and wild promises but the first thing they did was to present the simple unadorned basics of Dianetics.

Think about that... <snip>

Let me think about that...

The "simple unadorned basics of Dianetics" were Hubbard's lies. These "basics of Dianetics" were not only not proven, but disproven.

The problem you seem to have is that you actually don't realize that many of Hubbard's statements were lies -- so you say "Hubbard's lying is nowhere near as bad as it's made out" based on that false data. You believe his lies were truth.

 

[DagwoodGum]

The development of OTIII and the establishment of the Sea Org in 1968 appear to mark a significant change in The Old Man.

"The development of OTIII and the establishment of the Sea Org in 1968 appear to mark a significant change in The Old Man. " Clay

Based upon what you've read I'd have to assume, as I'd hate to be the one to remind you that you were born in 1969.

 

[Little David]

Let me think about that...

The "simple unadorned basics of Dianetics" were Hubbard's lies. These "basics of Dianetics" were not only not proven, but disproven.

The problem you seem to have is that you actually don't realize that many of Hubbard's statements were lies -- so you say "Hubbard's lying is nowhere near as bad as it's made out" based on that false data. You believe his lies were truth.

Well said, as was S. I. Hayakawa in 1951 below:

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

..c
cross-posted on the Stupid Thread


"Were we stupid to join Scientology?"


ANSWER: I joined Scientology mainly because of two reasons:

1. My ARC Triangle crashed. Yes, I had a catastrophic "ARC Break". I mistakenly thought that it was "reality" that Scientology worked. I mistakenly had "affinity" for the lying, sociopathic con man L. Ron Hubbard. And, I mistakenly communicated to Scientologists that I had enough to pay for the $25 com course.

2. My SNG Triangle also crashed. Yes, I had a catastrophic "SNG Break". (Stupid, Naive & Gullible)

[bcolor=#ffffff].[/bcolor]

 

[phenomanon]

It rather depends on when you joined.

In the 1950's, based on the data available . . . and since the man had a credible publisher carry his book that became a major best seller, and based on the promoted credential of a PhD . . . and based on the fact of no publicity critical of the scam and there being no internet spelling out the truth . . . one should validate your judgement based on the data available and the prevailing times.



Thanks, Roger.You described the 1950s scenario well.

 

[The_Fixer]

Plus I don't think it all got crazy till Hubbard himself did, I'm thinking early, mid seventy's.
His obsessive control over everything and everyone didn't become fully manifest till long after Dianetics had garnered so much initial acceptance based upon fraudulent claims that would not come to light till much later.
I think the true "old timers" get a Mulligan on the issue of whether being "stupid" was the issue with their entry into what it was all about in the early days.
I make that assumption as I didn't get exposed to it until 1968 and it wasn't all so bad even by then.
I was alarmed by things starting to come off the rails by the mid 70's from the vantage point of a cash strapped Class IV Org being bled dry by the tightening fist of the Sea Org.
Prior to that time with those arrogant monthly prices increase on services one was able to reasonably project and pay for one's progress up the bridge.
Soon it was to cost far more than I was willing to pay without having financial insolvency as my constant companion.
Knowing they just didn't give a shit up-lines was all I needed to know, I was out.
What claim to "enlightenment" could they possibly make?

Hubbard came to be known to be a nutter when he was in the military. His psychiatric and military profile was not available for public knowledge then.
In subsequent years he proved himself to be the nutter and the liar that he was.

But yes, it wasn't obvious to many at the time and as Roger B says, the information on him just wasn't out there anywhere in the day. The advent of the internet really brought so much of it to light on a grand scale. Even in the seventies there was really not a lot of information out there on scientology or Hubbard.

Nowadays, there has really got to be something wrong if you join up. I really find it hard to conceive people being that blind, but it happens. Our brains still switch off when we hear what we want to hear and won't listen to what we need to hear.

 

[DagwoodGum]

Nowadays, there has really got to be something wrong if you join up. I really find it hard to conceive people being that blind, but it happens. Our brains still switch off when we hear what we want to hear and won't listen to what we need to hear.

And there are those people who have a huge self-destruct kick going on and will find themselves psychologically drawn to tragic circumstances to get themselves into where they can't possibly win.
An example are those young girls from the suburbs who fall under the spell of some pimp when they get to the big city and work the streets and die in the gutter.
They are often trying to punish someone else, their father, ex boyfriend or their mothers and will self destruct to cause them pain and suffering.
She might be the type to eventually find herself signing a 5 yr or billion year contract in some org eventually and again end up with nothing but suffering.