Isolating the "good bits" of Scn theory/mgmt

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by honeywhite, Sep 17, 2017.

View Users: View Users
  1. honeywhite

    honeywhite Patron

    Found a comment on Reddit that states, in part:

    "The whole process of dianetic auditing is predicated upon the phenomenon of abreaction. As I've mentioned, the idea of past lives could represent a variety of Jungian fantasy synthesis, or free association, and ought to be explored in that light. "Survival" being the "dynamic principle of existence" resonates with Dawkins's hypothesis in The Selfish Gene, in which genetic perpetuation is the impersonal and mindless "purpose" of life, and the idea of pleasure and pain being feedback mechanisms to determine how well the organism is conforming to its "prime directive" is a very sensible one when seen in this light.

    Finally, "locational assists" seem to have the same sort of utility as "mindfulness meditation", and ARC is a genuinely useful (if needlessly ritualized) formula for establishing communication with people."

    To this, I would like to add the Study Hat course in its entirety, and some of the better management ideas from the horse's mouth. I'm referring to mgmt by statistics primarily. Even the much-ridiculed Oatee levels might hold water; certainly not the incidents, but the commands to audit out might be rooted in Truth (as opposed to subjective reality) in some way.

  2. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    In 1952, Scientology's founder invented a past and a future for Scientologists. He made it trillions of years in both directions. He first experimented with inventing a past for Scientologists in his Benzedrine-inspired text 'History of Man', originally titled 'What to Audit'.

    Around that same time, Hubbard tested other ideas, such as that a person's reaction to Scientology (or to him), would place that person on the "Tone Scale," with a disapproving reaction placing the person low on the scale. Those low on the "Tone Scale" - not being "sane" - were to have no credibility, and "no rights of any kind."

    Hubbard also tested the idea of using meters as truth detectors. Does anyone doubt that showman and hypnotist Hubbard, when using an early Mathison e-meter, one which projected its needle movements on a wall or screen for all to see, did not notice when many in the crowd oohed and aahed at the display of a reaction?

    Yet, it was premature for the implementation of these ideas on the still small, fragile and tentative membership. That would need to wait for a decade, as would Hubbard's implementation of most of the ideas outlined in the enigmatic "Russian Textbook on Psycho-politics."

    In the mean time, Hubbard surrounded himself with those excited about his much advertised vision of a better world, and of the full releasing of human potential. Hubbard liked to write and he liked to lecture, and he had a knack as a practical psychologist.

    He drew on the ideas and innovations of the most creative of those around him, and drew on his own knowledge of abreaction therapy, Korzybski's General Semantics, and Aleister Crowley's Magic(k). He re-worked the (four 'letters' - ingredients - of the) Kabbalistic 'tetragrammaton', and it became his 'Four Conditions of Existence'. He rewrote Crowley's 'Naples Arrangement' and it became his 'The Factors'. He borrowed Crowley's idea of a multiplicity of infinite minds and further excited Scientologists with that notion. None of these were original with Crowley, who was as much a relay point as was Hubbard.

    Yet, unlike Crowley, Hubbard would eventually incorporate the methods of psychological warfare into his system, and use those methods, not only on his perceived enemies, but on his own followers.

    And when - in the mid 1960s - Hubbard unleashed, mostly covertly, his psychological warfare tactics on Scientologists, he also returned to fully utilizing those ideas he had briefly tested more than a decade earlier.
    • Like Like x 7
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • List
  3. ThetanExterior

    ThetanExterior Gold Meritorious Patron

    Look at how Hubbard ended-up. Also Captain Bill Robertson. I think that shows how much value the OT levels have - zero.

    Look at the state of the Church of Scientology today. About 20,000 members or less after over 60+ years of being in business. I think that shows the value of Hubbard's Admin tech - zero.

    Compare the amount of useful stuff in Scientology with the useful stuff available elsewhere and Scientology is a hugely overpriced self-improvement system that has become a totalitarian cult.
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  4. EZ Linus

    EZ Linus Patron with Honors

    Thoughts? This is idiotic. Hubbard presented made-up nonsense as a "problem" and then the only "solution" to this problem was a expensive Bridge to Total Freedom. At the end of this Bridge you were handed the "answer" that you made it all up (which essentially was the Clear cognition on a grand scale). Some of his theories may have held some water, but were they worth all the other mindfucks? Can you read for pleasure easily without having to look up every little word? Does ARC really equal "understanding?" Did we really not understand how the communication cycle worked and why speaking to someone else unburdened our heaviness and gave us relief? Have past lives ever, ever, ever been proven?
    • Like Like x 5
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • List
  5. Bill

    Bill Silver Meritorious Patron

    I have seen this kind of musings many times, even while I was a True Believer. I've seen people bring bits of Hubbard's "tech" and other bits from other philosophies and treatments to attempt to validate the Scientology/Dianetics "tech".

    It simply is not valid to do that. Bits of any bizarre "tech" can be "validated" in this way. It is bogus. The only thing that counts is:
    • What is specifically promised from the "tech".
    • What is consistently produced by the "tech".
    It is of no consequence if bits of "tech" match some other bits of some other "tech".

    The "Study Tech" promises "superliteracy" but in the real world, in general, people using Hubbard's "Study Tech" do very, very poorly. Some I know have become so afraid of words that they gave up reading entirely.

    The "Management Tech" promises highly efficient and productive organizations but, in the real world, organizations utilizing Hubbard's "tech" create horrible, abusive work environments and consistently false "statistics".

    While one can find bits of Hubbard's "tech" that appear similar to "good bits" from other philosophies, as a whole, Hubbard's "tech", ALL of Hubbard's "tech", needs to be forgotten.
    • Like Like x 4
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  6. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Gold Meritorious Sponsor


    I especially like that simple tool you suggested by which to judge Scientology:

    I suppose folks might answer those questions differently; here is my survey response:

    What is specifically promised from the tech?
    ANSWER: Everything!

    What is consistently produced by the tech?
    ANSWER: Gains! (financial gains to the tech mongers)

    monger - noun: 1.(chiefly in combination) A dealer in a specific commodity. 2. A person promoting something undesirable. warmonger, sleazemonger, scaremonger
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • LOL LOL x 1
    • List
  7. EZ Linus

    EZ Linus Patron with Honors

    Yes, that "superliteracy" thing is such a joke. I have had to learn so much about the English language since I've left, especially since I was working on a book for so long. The first years I was working on it, it read like it was written by someone just out of grammar school -- because that was my level of education. Learning syntax is just one example. Looking up words won't help you structure sentences.
  8. Gizmo

    Gizmo Rabble Rouser

    The whole of dianetics was stolen from a previous book by another who abandoned that 'method' as unproductive.
    The study teck in it's entirety was stolen from another.
    Where is a business - including scn itself ! - that is successful when run on the tek ? Ain't none. scn after 60 years has how many people doing it ?

    Speaking of 60 years plus, where is ONE clear to be found ? How about a fabled ot ? Oh, none to show - well, except in their own imagination.
    Where is a real product of scn ? Oh, yeah, too many people dead too soon, too many broken families, too many abandoned children, too many children sexually abused, too many went BK . . . . . . . . . . oh, that is the real product of scn : death & disaster !
  9. honeywhite

    honeywhite Patron

    I agree with the original reddit post in that this was erroneous vis-a-vis abreaction therapy as well as, on a more empirical level, FACTUALLY incorrect but might produce workable results regardless. (i.e., you are mocking up the whole track, in scientologese) The more logical way to proceed would be to place the dianetic clear as a sort of unattainable ideal, but to work towards it regardless.

    Not good. But then again, the Tone Scale may or may not be applicable to mundane situations. For example, confronting someone who is at fear, and is seeing a situation through the filter thereof, with the same fear, and then leading them up through anger, antagonism, boredom, etc. as applicable. I'm not saying it's universally applicable, or testable, or true... but certainly a point worth considering.

    True, and at the same time morally questionable if not outright evil/contra-survival. And then again, the Mathison electropsychometer comes in useful in psychotherapy, especially with the knowledge of reads developed (I'm fairly sure) by Hubbard et al. Jung termed the e-meter "a looking-glass into the unconscious", but with his unamplified model and not knowing what to look for, it was like using a fogged-up piece of metal as such---just wouldn't do. Thanks are due to Mr Mathison, Mr Hubbard, Dr Winter, and co. for services to psychotherapy, nebulous and poorly documented though they may be. Even if it's as insignificant as to be limited to "theta bop suggests client 'doesn't want to be here', or is 'elsewhere' with his mind", that presents certain implications when treating the mind.

    Also a very unappreciated knack for synthesis. I find that people who lean analytic are looked up to generally, which Hubbard on some base level understood and tried to paint himself as such for the equally base rewards of money and power, but he was far more synthetic, able to glue disparate pieces of information together to make a whole possibly greater than the sum of its parts. Direct and indirect research is what I'm distinguishing here, or field and library if you prefer.

    Here we come again to morally suspect actions which I in no way endorse.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • List
  10. honeywhite

    honeywhite Patron

    I'm not attempting to validate Scn as a whole by comparing its parts to parts of other tech. I'm only attempting to validate those specific parts as *improvements* on the "wog" equivalents. No doubt the tech of Jungian analysis would benefit from the introduction of an electropsychometer to the table. Jung thought so himself until he got a bit dejected because the ohm-meters of his day were fixed-gain, fixed-sensitivity, unamplified, etc, and of limited utility in clinical practice. Similarly, the tech of auditing, separate and apart from the e-meter, might constitute a field of psychotherapy equally legitimate to the Freudian, Jungian, Adlerian etc schools. Of course this is once past lives are thrown out, and I use the term "equally legitimate" advisedly; Freudian therapy has no relationship to the structure of the brain, yet demonstrably produces some improvement in some patients some of the time.

    I'm also wondering if some of the Scn tech might be despised purely out of association with Scn. I've heard of people doing dianetic auditing without mention of dianetics, Scn or LRH; the preclear gets along swimmingly with the auditor, the case moves forward, and "bank" (of course, being a constructed concept not a physical quantity) diminishes.

    What is promised from the tech is also of no consequence. Sildenafil was marketed as the blood pressure pill that worked. It had no effect on blood pressure. Zero. It was still very useful, and if you are a male over the age of 50, on opioid therapy, or both, you will know *precisely* what I mean. Production is the only thing that matters; even the Old Man frequently belaboured that point, saying something along the lines of "truth is what is true for you". He failed to deliver more often than he succeeded, but I digress.

    Not my experience but I didn't do/disseminate it in a cultic or even religious environment. I was given a pack by someone who'd been given it by someone else; I found it exceedingly, and I mean exceedingly, useful in grammar school study and then in the study of law. I re-typed it, omitting all mention of the word Scientology and anything supernatural, and passed it around---"the little white envelope" got so popular I had people copying my copy!

    Run by Scientologists or not? I think that's a very important question to ask. I think being in the cult the Old Man founded and that the Wanker in Chief stole produces far more of a negative mindset than having a well-stocked LRH library, reading over it, and putting to use those parts that one judges of use. Not directly saying, however, that management by stat is a good practice, merely that it bears neutral investigation by non-Scn connected entities.

    Even down to the last sentence that boils down to, "a harmonic fluctuation of bodily electric impedance between two levels tends to indicate a psychotherapeutic breakthrough"? Much too categorical, in my opinion. We can say Study Tech was lifted from Korzybski, we can say it produces terrible results in the hands of Scientologists, we can say dianetics bears no relation to the neural structure of the mind, but we can't say that the life's work of one man is so thoroughly deplorable that every piece of it is utterly devoid of any use at all.
  11. Bill

    Bill Silver Meritorious Patron

    I don't know about you at all, but from your posting, I'd have to assume you don't have much experience within Scientology. And you are curious. All good things.
    The idea that some parts of Scientology are superior to non-Scientology technology is understandable, since Hubbard said so time after time. Perhaps he was correct some of the time.
    Unless the "tech" is tested in a non-Scientology environment, how would we know?
    Well, it was and we do know.
    Hubbard Management "Tech": Yes it was implemented in the real world by non-Scientologists. Allstate. Read about it here. The result of Hubbard's Managment "Tech" is, inevitably, a nightmare.
    Hubbard Study "Tech": Unfortunately, I don't have a link for this. Around 2007, the IAS sponsored an "independent" test of Hubbard Study "Tech" in a non-Scientology school. Non-Scientology teachers were carefully trained in the "tech" and non-Scientology students were carefully tested before, during and after implementing the "tech". All carefully monitored by independent, non-Scientology, researchers. It was a disaster for Scientology. Since everyone involved was under bond not to talk about it ever, the results were buried.
    Hubbard Drug Rehabilitation "Tech": In the same time period, another "independent" research project was funded by the IAS to prove Hubbard Drug Rehabilitation "Tech" was "superior". Same results and same complete suppression of the findings.
    Dianetics: Back when Dianetics was all the rage, some Dianeticists created an independent test to prove Hubbard's Engram theory. They tried and failed.
    And so on.

    If someone wants to go to the trouble to actually TEST any of Hubbard's "tech" to find out if it is "superior", well that's fine. But don't you realize that True Believers have been attempting exactly that for over 60 years without any luck?
    The odds of some bit actually being superior are not very good. If it were, I think someone would have proven that by now. And they haven't.
    But don't let that stop you. It could happen.
    • Like Like x 4
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • LOL LOL x 1
    • List
  12. Gizmo

    Gizmo Rabble Rouser

    One might come to the conclusion that were there any really superior parts of scn the world would have long since beaten a path to the better mousetrap !

    In 60+ years of constant attempts what scn has accomplished is in droves driving people from as far away from it as they can get.

    It isn't difficult to find people who got involved in scn & left - at least disappointed if not broke & broken.

    Being generous, there is , say, 60,000 people worldwide actively involved in scn. That ought to be big enough clue that scn is singing it's swan song.

    The Fat Lady is singing . . . . . . . . . . very loudly !
  13. Bill

    Bill Silver Meritorious Patron

    In my opinion, there is one fatal flaw that permeates all of Hubbard's "tech". I know there are lots of flaws, but this one seems to me to be the common, generic flaw to it all.

    Hubbard created all his "tech" as absolute and comprehensive. This was it, complete and perfect. Of course, then he had to come back and add/delete/modify it but then the "tech" was absolute and comprehensive - don't question it just follow it.

    Take the condition formulas, for example. These conditions are the ONLY conditions you can or ever will be in. You will ALWAYS be in exactly one of his conditions. Then these formulas are the exact and ONLY method of moving "up" to the "next condition". Period. Do not question it, just "follow the formulas". Even when I was a True Believer, in the Sea Org, I understood at a unconscious level that this "Conditions Formulas" really didn't match reality and one just had to pretend.

    Take the Tone Scale, for example. These "tones" are the ONLY emotions you can or ever will experience. You will ALWAYS be in one of these specific emotions and no other. When you experience another emotion you MUST move through all the intervening tone levels. Do not question this, it just IS that way. When, in reality, you experience other, unlisted emotions, or more than one emotion, or DON'T "move through all intervening tones", well, you must be wrong.

    Hubbard's "solutions" all had to be exact, specific, one-size-fits-all, just follow these steps, formulas. He knew it all and had "mapped" out all the solutions.

    And, from what I know, his only testing was himself -- what was true for Hubbard was true. If you're not Hubbard, well, make yourself match Hubbard, then his "tech" is perfect.
  14. Ogsonofgroo

    Ogsonofgroo Crusader

    Interesting thread, on a topic well discussed over the years.
    I truly understand why those who were roped in by LRon's gibberish, finally flee, and want to hope-in-hell that there was something, even just one thing, even one basic idea, that is worth salvaging from ol' Tub's deluded mess of a con: Few people are humble enough to admit when they have been burned big-time in a con, let alone a long-con of epic proportions, and it is no wonder to me that so many ex's have tried to grasp the brass ring long after the merry-go-round burned its bearings. It truly is a battle, especially it seems to me, for those unfortunate enough to be born into the cult, as many seem to struggle to catch up with their educations, find new lives in a world they were taught to despise and shun. It sucks big-time.
    Pride? Shame? Typical mental damage done by an insane 'messiah''?
    Unfortunately it seems that there is no real validation except from those still going *woo-hoo-masters-of-the-universe!*, little realizing that anything 'good' in Sci philosophy was ripped off from numerous sources, free knowledge (as all knowledge should be imho) for those who seek such, but highly monitorized by the cult of scientology as something 'special'.
    In closing my wee mini-rant thingy, I'd like to tell a quick story of one of my dad's travels over the Siberian railway to lake Baikal in what was then the USSR. Several thousand miles into his trip to the biologist convention he was going to, the train made a stop. My pops needed to go to the bathroom badly, the train biffies were well beyond gross, so during the stop he asked where the br's were. He was pointed to a concrete cinder-block structure around the back of the station. Oh good thought pappa~ off he went.
    Through the door was an empty floor with a couple of holes dug in, piles of shiot everywhere, stank like the dead. Chickens were running in the door too, and they would grab a kernel of corn or rice from the poo-piles, and then flee. They were smart enough to gtfo. Totally grossed out, Dad went to do his thing in the train.
    Bottom line? The chickens were smart enough to leave with a nugget of food...
    If you're stuck in a cult eating crap, you cannot see outside the gilded cage at the scary world which keeps you inside, that crap may seem okay for the time, but most know such is not the case.
    I apologise ahead of time for a rather mangled analogy, I go now...

    Cheers to One and All!!!
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Love Love x 1
    • Poop Poop x 1
    • List
  15. Ogsonofgroo

    Ogsonofgroo Crusader

    Lol Lil'D, never had a 'poop' before! Now my sides hurt from laughter... and... its all your fault!
    • Like Like x 1
    • Love Love x 1
    • LOL LOL x 1
    • List
  16. Lurker5

    Lurker5 Gold Meritorious Patron

    Try out the :fuckoff: :lol:
    • Love Love x 1
    • LOL LOL x 1
    • Angry Angry x 1
    • List
  17. JackStraw

    JackStraw Silver Meritorious Patron

    There were good parts of scientology?

    Who knew??

  18. Gizmo

    Gizmo Rabble Rouser

    Scn ? I believe the only valid reply is :fuckoff:

    That entirely covers that topic .
    • LOL LOL x 2
    • Love Love x 1
    • List
  19. honeywhite

    honeywhite Patron

    Thanks for actually answering my question with something other than sarcastic bullshit. I hadn't realised that it *had* been tested aside from dianetic therapy with the specific hypothesis being that it could produce a measurable increase in IQ (result: it did, but the increase was within the margin of error, so for all intents and purposes, it didn't).

    It wasn't actually Hubbard's bombast that led me to consider the superiority thing, but Carl Jung's experiments in processing facilitated by an unamplified Wheatstone bridge. Although he later abandoned this area, he emphasised that this was because the state of electronics at the time did not provide for easy reads. Matheson improved the instrument, but it's doubtful whether in a world devoid of dianetics, he would so have done. Hubbard (probably) discovered the meaning of the various e-meter deflections. I continue to believe that the e-meter, as an instrument, is useful in all manner of talking cures, whether you go the Jungian, Hubbardian, or Freudian-Lacanian route. Which of the three, if any, is a white-taped route out of the cave of insanity, but that's not the instrument's fault.

    The reason I'm asking this question, however, is partly because a friend of mine has been going to the Monterey Centre in Frisco for psychotherapy. While their main site doesn't use the word dianetics, I think they're affiliated with CA-DA, their therapist is ex-Scn, and they use the Auditor's Code word-for-word. Sky says she's had good experiences and they have good reviews on Yelp, but I'd rather she didn't invest in ineffective psychotherapy, if indeed it IS ineffective.
    That's one you did not need to include. Anybody the least bit knowledgeable on the subject, whether now or in the 1960's, knows that non-polar drugs like dronabinol and methadone are separate and distinct from water-soluble ones like cocaine and lysergide (aka Delysid). While the possibility of "sweating out" cannabis metabolites is superficially plausible, any remaining credibility goes out the window when it's mentioned that Narconon can be administered indefinitely, because even the metabolites of cannabis are cleared out within months. The niacin is also complete hokum.
    I think the wrong question was being asked there. It's of little importance whether engrams exist as described; the public-health implications of a therapy remain whether it's based on provable fact or utter bunkum. If healers in some backward culture claimed that lung infections were caused by demons, that these demons used coughs and sneezes to propagate, and that they could be exorcised with a ritual that included eating blue bread mould, the rate of bronchitis would decrease in spite of the scientific inaccuracy. Much of Freud's theories are contradicted by neurological research, but just try seeing a Lacanian shrink. The auditing processes invented by Lacan and heavily indebted to Freud work. Well, aside from autism, which is getting to be a problem in some European countries, because the "other option" to Lacan is the far more heavy-handed psychiatry. In America, instead, behaviourism "won", which is great for behaviourists and good for science, but not so good for everyone else.

    So, the real question is, does dianetic "therapy" produce specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and timely improvements in quality of life? That question has not yet been answered in any meaningful way. I doubt treatment outcomes are any better than those following the Freudian model. Dianetics is, at its heart, a talking cure, and you'd expect results roughly on the level of its equivalents. To get traction as a quasi-mainstream model, seriously aberrated cases would have to be referred to pharmacological treatment, Hubbard be damned, and the question of what to do with pre-natal or whole-track "engrams" would have to be answered and stand up to scrutiny to the satisfaction of the establishment, again, Hubbard be damned. The one conclusive way to expose dianetics as a sham therapy would be to compare its treatment outcomes with those of psychoanalysis, analytical psychology, Rogerian, Adlerian, etc. For the record, I doubt it's a total sham, but the thetan certainly does not jump across lifetimes and the mythical Dianetic Clear is just that.

    Remember, though, that my question implied "picking and choosing" from LRH's tech, including the clear implication that it was absolute and comprehensive. For example, one might like the idea of managing by statistics, but disdain imposition of the ethics conditions. One might even like the Ethics Conditions, use them as the cornerstone of his first-dynamic belief system, and teach their use to others, but be philosophically opposed to assigning other people conditions. I know someone like that who isn't even a Scientologist! He literally assigns himself one of the conditions every Monday depending on how he's been doing at work, and then does the appropriate steps. That is the sum total of his involvement with Scn.

    I'm not sure if one has to move through all intervening tones per LRH, but my personal observations have been that tones do not occur out of order. It goes resentment, anger, hate, pain, or the other way around, possibly skipping over one or two rungs on the way there, but not pain, resentment, hate, anger. I also agree that you can "match and lead" someone up (or down!) the tone scale, so it isn't totally useless.

  20. EZ Linus

    EZ Linus Patron with Honors

    (Bold = mine.)

    Hubbard should probably have received the Pulitzer Prize then -- he was the first individual to ever recognize these emotional tones in the correct order. By all means, find credit where ever it is due for the poor guy. He is so unfairly bashed by his bullshitting sarcastic critics. It's not like his "tech" ever damaged anyone, even if you can pick and choose little bits of things he penned to be applicable outside the confines of the cult. And forget the fact that much of it was plagiarized, or in many cases assisted/co-founded with others that later had their names removed because Hubbard was simply A NARCISSIST!

    If you investigate, even a little, you'll find he was also paranoid, sociopathic, and resentful too (of the psychiatric and medical fields).

Share This Page