Question for all former scientologists

[lionheart]

I know, because I was very closely involved with comatose research whilst studying psychology. <snip>

What can and does however happen is that the artificiality of the exponent can have a repercussion with regard to the propensity of the proband to give credence to the original postulate.

Unlike in Scn where dissent was controlled by overwhelming authority, I'm not so sure this works too well on free-thinking ex-scns!

Bill came up with a good theory about why past life recalls may be limited by the viewer's culture and experience.

I came up with evidence that something physical changed from my Dn auditing.

If you want to explain your sentence in similarly clear english then we would all be interested, if you are just taking the p**s then we can all have a laugh.

Are you saying that belief and expectation colour the results or are you just mocking?

 

[Alan]

There is no such thing as an "artificially-induced coma" - except a brick very liberally applied to the head. I know, because I was very closely involved with comatose research whilst studying psychology.

Nev, you lie!

Your next sentence will definiteley produce and induce a coma.

What can and does however happen is that the artificiality of the exponent can have a repercussion with regard to the propensity of the proband to give credence to the original postulate.

What can and does however happen is that the artificiality<(Generality, who, what, where, when, etc.)of the exponent<(Generality, who, what, where, when, etc.) can have a repercussion<(Generality, who, what, where, when, etc.) with regard to the propensity<(Generality, who, what, where, when, etc.) of the proband<(Generality, who, what, where, when, etc.) to give credence to the original postulate<(Generality, who, what, where, when, etc.).


Congratulations on creating a perfect hypnotic command sentence. What ever attention anyone had available after getting this delivered would have put them firmly in a trance state.

Alan

 

[spbill]

spbill, There is no such thing as an "artificially-induced coma" - except a brick very liberally applied to the head. I know, because I was very closely involved with comatose research whilst studying psychology.

I see what you mean Nec - my mistake. The original report made it clear that it was a "drug-induced coma" - thanks for pointing that out.
Bill

 

[Mick Wenlock]

Ah yes. The poor maligned placebo effect - as in "oh, that was ONLY a placebo effect".

I find the placebo effect fascinating....

Most everyone agrees that the placebo effect exists, but no one can really explain how it works.

Yes it is fascinating.

Folks just know it exists. Interesting.

Don't see anyone saying it doesn't exist, although it cannot be explained.

Folks put it down as a "nothing", but do you ever hear anyone saying that there is no such thing as a placebo effect?

I am not sure who the "folks" are that you are referring to - the placebo effect is not 'nothing' - it is a very real factor in treatment of conditions and, if not taken into account and tested for, it will affect results.

Now to me, it just demonstrates what may popularly be called "mind over matter" or, more accurately, " the being over matter".

The person thinks the pill will cure whatever - and fancy that, it does.

Er, no. I don't think you have understood what the placebo effect is.

If you are given a pill (placebo) and told what it is expected to do then a certain percentage of those who are part of that study will say they have experienced the expected result. They will feel happier, or less stressed, or the pain will have gone away or whatever.

I have never heard of - and I have to say up front that I have not gone into any great research on this - of anyone being "cured" of a bacterial infection by use of a placebo study of antibiotics.

It is interesting to note that scientology and dianetic auditing require a large amount of telling the PC what is expected to happen and how things are supposed to be. That effort makes trying to correct for a placebo effect almost impossible.

Who cares if it's called a placebo effect.

The person who gets prescribed a placebo in place of a real medication and who suffers for it.

 

[freet43]

Yes it is fascinating.

I am not sure who the "folks" are that you are referring to - the placebo effect is not 'nothing' - it is a very real factor in treatment of conditions and, if not taken into account and tested for, it will affect results. .

This is used dismissively by some when discussing Scn. or Dn wins- calling them placebo effects - such as some folks on this list.

Er, no. I don't think you have understood what the placebo effect is..

Think what you wish, but actually I do understand the placebo effect.

My point is simple - that there are phenomena that are "unexplainable" - at least not yet by those in the mainstream -and although "unexplainable", their existence is generally not disputed.

If you are given a pill (placebo) and told what it is expected to do then a certain percentage of those who are part of that study will say they have experienced the expected result. They will feel happier, or less stressed, or the pain will have gone away or whatever. ..

Correct. I'd say that everyone participating is hoping to have whatever it is cured or made better and hopes that they received the "real thing". Some receive the desired effect regardless of what they were given.

So, what is going on there?

I admit I have a different take on why that occurs than most people.

But, the scientific community has not proven anything about it either.

It is interesting to note that scientology and dianetic auditing require a large amount of telling the PC what is expected to happen and how things are supposed to be. That effort makes trying to correct for a placebo effect almost impossible. ..

Not always - but even when that is done, what's the problem if it works? if there is a good result?

The person who gets prescribed a placebo in place of a real medication and who suffers for it.

Yes, that is sad but I'm not a big fan of the double-blind study and that wasn't what I was getting at.

It was simply a statement that if someone gets better it doesn't matter if the reason is "unexplainable" - if it's called a placebo effect - or whatever it is called.

 

[Zinjifar]

This is used dismissively by some when discussing Scn. or Dn wins- calling them placebo effects - such as some folks on this list.

Think what you wish, but actually I do understand the placebo effect.

My point is simple - that there are phenomena that are "unexplainable" - at least not yet by those in the mainstream -and although "unexplainable", their existence is generally not disputed.

It was simply a statement that if someone gets better it doesn't matter if the reason is "unexplainable" - if it's called a placebo effect - or whatever it is called.

It sounds to me like you're confusing 'miracle' with 'placebo'.

How a placebo works is very well understood; it's a variation of the 'power of suggestion' and a kind of autohypnosis.

A *miracle*, on the other hand, is unexplained or unexplainable.

A 'miracle' might actually include a 'cure', while a 'placebo' does nothing but convince the 'patient' that he is cured. No 'mind over matter', just false conviction.

And, a placebo *can* be dangerous. Take for example someone given a pill that promises to 'make him immune to cancer'.

It's quite possible that he will 'feel fine' and ignore symptoms in the belief that he is 'immune'; at least until it's progressed far enough to be overwhelming.

For some 'illnesses' which cannot be 'cured' or treated some kind of *conscious* 'placebo' effect such as autohypnosis maybe *be* the best treatment, such as headaches, or 'phantom pain' or chronic painful conditions that *cannot otherwise be treated* to actually 'cure' them; but, in those cases it's not really a 'placebo', because the patient is aware that he's 'handling' his condtion, not 'curing' it.

It's like 'affirmations', which are usually harmless, until they fly in the face of reality. Like, somebody 'affirming' that 'Everybody Loves Me', which may prevent him from finding out why everybody *hates* him, and doing something about it

Or, somebody using affirmations to convince himself that he can 'run like the wind', who can run into problems trying to dodge buses.

Yes, in Scientology, 'Wishes' *are* horses, but the result is a Monty Python sketch.

Zinj

 

[Nec_V20]

To all who replied to me on this thread.

No I was not taking the piss, and no I was not wanting to be either sophomoric nor circular in my argument.

Whilst I was studying psychology, I was offered the opportunity to take part in sleep research in the Venusberg Clinic in Bonn.

It turns out that my blood-pressure goes down to 80 over 50 (yes eighty over fifty) and I go quite rapidly to the delta waves with very little or no REM and stay there for the duration of my sleep.

It points to a right brain problem and could be explained by the fact that I was a "blue baby" at birth.

Another experiment which I took part in shows that my speech centre crosses the corpus callosum and resides in part in the right hand side of my brain (normally the speech centre is in the left hand side exclusively).

I have also been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome - which as a techie is not so much a debilitating but rather a facilitating form of autism - dependent on the severity - where I am luckily not severe.

I have also had massive cranial trauma which resulted in my heart stopping when I was 15 and was "dead". That was when I was in a coma for a number of days.

I am now coming up for 50.

 

[The Oracle]

To answer your question, I never paid attention to what was "taboo" in the Church.

I had a friend staying here for a while though that pointed out many phrases used in the Church are borrowed from phsyciatry.

phsycosis
neurosis
anti social
nuerotic
psycotic

Just to name a few.

I thought drugs were taboo and was amazed to find a staff at the FSO giving a public who had flipped tranquilizers.

I guess sex and marriage is taboo there now, along with children.

I was amazed to hear "whatever" got sent to the RPF for flirting, flirting wasn't taboo when I was in the Sea Org. I was a notorious flirt and everyone thought it was hysterical. I flirted with staff, public, and even the mailman.

Children were not taboo then either.

It seems the whole second dynamic is taboo there now, so I would reckon the staff have to suppress themselves and so then are somewhat pts to themselves.

Drinking wasn't taboo when I was in either. There was an annual beer and cheese party. I always went out to the local bar on friday nights and had a few glasses of wine.

Being too friendly to the "public" I heard was an RPFable offense these days.
I heard someone was rpf'ed to talking to a public in a parking lot.

I'm afraid I wouldn't know anything about how the Sea Org is today.

It is apparently much different than when I was in, as the Church and the tech are too now.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

When people use the word "Sea Org, Scientology, or L. Ron Hubbard, we are not all talking about the same things or the same person.

Because all of these things changed dramatically over the years.



T.I.

 

[ron's hat]

I'm not a former scientologist but have been wondering this for a while now.

Now that you have all left the CoS, what are your views on the things that were taboo in the "church", like psychiatry?

Psychiatry has got much, MUCH better meds than scientology!

 

[Pixie]

I'm not a former scientologist but have been wondering this for a while now.

Now that you have all left the CoS, what are your views on the things that were taboo in the "church", like psychiatry?

I'm still against it, possibly because of all the video type documentaries shown to us at the time, it had one of the worst affects, it shocked me completely, and no matter what I hear or read about it now, I still cannot condone any of it. I spent ten years in Scientology (and it doesn't deserve a capital letter) and would have gone to my grave believing it was nothing to question until I read some stuff on the net six or so months ago, I'm still shocked, although I've woken up completely to the sham and shame that it is, I am still aware of robotic tendencies. The question remains, will any 'ex scientologists' ever be really normal again? We may think we are, but depending on your experiences in there, like the longer you were in there, I'm not so sure, but the bottom line is, it has taught me now to question everything, and I guess that's not so bad, but the scars are still there, the loss of the people I loved the most.

 

[Bea Kiddo]

I'm still against it, possibly because of all the video type documentaries shown to us at the time, it had one of the worst affects, it shocked me completely, and no matter what I hear or read about it now, I still cannot condone any of it. I spent ten years in Scientology (and it doesn't deserve a capital letter) and would have gone to my grave believing it was nothing to question until I read some stuff on the net six or so months ago, I'm still shocked, although I've woken up completely to the sham and shame that it is, I am still aware of robotic tendencies. The question remains, will any 'ex scientologists' ever be really normal again? We may think we are, but depending on your experiences in there, like the longer you were in there, I'm not so sure, but the bottom line is, it has taught me now to question everything, and I guess that's not so bad, but the scars are still there, the loss of the people I loved the most.

Welcome to the board, Pixie!!!

 

[Lulu Belle]

I'm afraid I wouldn't know anything about how the Sea Org is today.

It is apparently much different than when I was in, as the Church and the tech are too now.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

When people use the word "Sea Org, Scientology, or L. Ron Hubbard, we are not all talking about the same things or the same person.

Because all of these things changed dramatically over the years.

That's very true.

 

[Zinjifar]

That's very true.

Disagree.

Scientology Today is just an evolution of what it always was. Nothing happening now is 'off policy', unless you're going by the 'feelgood' policy as compared to the 'secret policy'.

If anything, Scientology is more 'efficient' nowdays; which is what people notice.

When Hubbard was 'running' it, He wasn't; He was delegating His insanity.

Zinj

 

[Lee_from_phx]

I'm not a former scientologist but have been wondering this for a while now.

Now that you have all left the CoS, what are your views on the things that were taboo in the "church", like psychiatry?

My view on psychiatry is that while it is effective in many cases, it tends to focus too much on pharmacology as a solution. There are people whose conditions do not respond to anything BUT medication. If someone is bipolar then they're bipolar. It isn't something that you can talk them out of or that they can think themselves through. Their condition is physiological rather than psychological. A hardware problem, not a software glitch. Bug-free software running on a system with bad memory is never going to run right. The same is true of conditions like bipolar disorder. Talking to the person is of very limited benefit because there's nothing really to talk about.

Then there are others whose condition is not due to bad wiring, but rather the result of factors within their own lives. Once upon a time people felt sad. Your dog died, you felt sad. Your dad lost his job, you felt sad. Your mom started drinking too much again, you felt sad. Today people no longer feel sad. Instead they suffer from depression. The solution is now different as well. Whereas in times past someone might DO something about what it is that is making them feel bad, now they take happy pills that help them avoid taking responsibility for the problem. That is an oversimplification and something of an exaggeration, but I'm sure you get the point.

Far too often nowadays people are not counseled about their problems, but medicated for a condition.

This will change of course as time goes by, but it is annoying at the moment.

 

[Pixie]

Welcome to the board, Pixie!!!

Thanks!!

 

[Krysti]

I'm still against it, possibly because of all the video type documentaries shown to us at the time, it had one of the worst affects, it shocked me completely, and no matter what I hear or read about it now, I still cannot condone any of it. I spent ten years in Scientology (and it doesn't deserve a capital letter) and would have gone to my grave believing it was nothing to question until I read some stuff on the net six or so months ago, I'm still shocked, although I've woken up completely to the sham and shame that it is, I am still aware of robotic tendencies. The question remains, will any 'ex scientologists' ever be really normal again? We may think we are, but depending on your experiences in there, like the longer you were in there, I'm not so sure, but the bottom line is, it has taught me now to question everything, and I guess that's not so bad, but the scars are still there, the loss of the people I loved the most.

Hi Pixie,

Keep an open mind about psychiatry. There may be a lot of room for improvement, but there is such a thing as mental illness and people who need medication. I am one of the them. If it weren't for medication, I wouldn't be where I am today.

Welcome to the board.

Krysti

 

[Krysti]

My view on psychiatry is that while it is effective in many cases, it tends to focus too much on pharmacology as a solution. There are people whose conditions do not respond to anything BUT medication. If someone is bipolar then they're bipolar. It isn't something that you can talk them out of or that they can think themselves through. Their condition is physiological rather than psychological. A hardware problem, not a software glitch. Bug-free software running on a system with bad memory is never going to run right. The same is true of conditions like bipolar disorder. Talking to the person is of very limited benefit because there's nothing really to talk about.

Then there are others whose condition is not due to bad wiring, but rather the result of factors within their own lives. Once upon a time people felt sad. Your dog died, you felt sad. Your dad lost his job, you felt sad. Your mom started drinking too much again, you felt sad. Today people no longer feel sad. Instead they suffer from depression. The solution is now different as well. Whereas in times past someone might DO something about what it is that is making them feel bad, now they take happy pills that help them avoid taking responsibility for the problem. That is an oversimplification and something of an exaggeration, but I'm sure you get the point.

Far too often nowadays people are not counseled about their problems, but medicated for a condition.

This will change of course as time goes by, but it is annoying at the moment.

Hi Lee,

I agree with everything you said. I do want to say that depression can be physiological also though.

One of the things that ticks me off the most about the whole medication issue is general physicians are allowed to prescribe psyche meds. I believe that is the biggest problem right there. They are not trained in psychology, yet they're allowed to flippantly prescribe serious meds to people without even doing an evaluation of the person.

The scariest part of this is anti-depressants alone are THE worst thing you could prescribe to someone who is bipolar. Yet, it is done ALL the time. The anti-depressant could cause the person who is bipolar to go full blown manic, become psychotic and kill someone. Yet, no one is doing anything about it. The focus becomes about how mental illness is being used an excuse for violent crime or how anti-depressants are causing people to become psychotic. What about untrained general physicians prescribing psychiatric medication to a patient without doing a psychiatric evaluation???

It makes me sick.

 

[Mick Wenlock]

My view on psychiatry is that while it is effective in many cases, it tends to focus too much on pharmacology as a solution. There are people whose conditions do not respond to anything BUT medication. If someone is bipolar then they're bipolar. It isn't something that you can talk them out of or that they can think themselves through. Their condition is physiological rather than psychological. A hardware problem, not a software glitch. Bug-free software running on a system with bad memory is never going to run right. The same is true of conditions like bipolar disorder. Talking to the person is of very limited benefit because there's nothing really to talk about.

Actually that is not true. A lot of people who have bi-polar disorder get counselling to help them managed the effects both of the medication and the condition. You are absolutely correct, you cannot alter the condition itself by talking. You can however alter the life of someone who is suffering through it.

Then there are others whose condition is not due to bad wiring, but rather the result of factors within their own lives. Once upon a time people felt sad. Your dog died, you felt sad. Your dad lost his job, you felt sad. Your mom started drinking too much again, you felt sad. Today people no longer feel sad. Instead they suffer from depression.

I am wondering where your information comes from on this. Have you had broad contact with the psychiatric community, have you worked with psychiatrists?

Where do you get the facts from that you are basing your opinion on?

The solution is now different as well. Whereas in times past someone might DO something about what it is that is making them feel bad, now they take happy pills that help them avoid taking responsibility for the problem. That is an oversimplification and something of an exaggeration, but I'm sure you get the point.

Well I do, in a way - but again, what facts are you basing this on - what is the unexaggerated case that you are extrapolating from?

Far too often nowadays people are not counseled about their problems, but medicated for a condition.

What would be the percentages you are talking about? How many people who seek psychiatric care are not counseled but prescribed?

This will change of course as time goes by, but it is annoying at the moment.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, psychiatry will change as we go on and as it discvers new and better modalities for treatment.

 

[Krysti]

Hey Mick,

I know these questions were directed toward Lee, but since I posted that I agree with him, I thought I'd answer them from my point of view also.

As far as counseling and bipolar. I took Lee to mean you cannot treat bipolar with therapy *alone*, not that it wouldn't or couldn't help dealing with it.

As far as sad versus depression. I think it is an important distinction. I feel the line does get blurred sometimes.

Again, in my experience though, it is the general practitioner who is doing the over-prescribing.

Krysti

 

[Mick Wenlock]

Hey Mick,

I know these questions were directed toward Lee, but since I posted that I agree with him, I thought I'd answer them from my point of view also.

As far as counseling and bipolar. I took Lee to mean you cannot treat bipolar with therapy *alone*, not that it wouldn't or couldn't help dealing with it.

Hi Krysti,

No problem! the more views the better, I think.

Yes, I agree with both yourself and Lee - the condition, bi polar, cannot be treated by counseling. But I think counseling can help with the effects of having the disorder. It's a bit like cancer - there is the physical battle, the drugs, the xrays, the surgery and so on but there is also the counseling to help one deal with the effects that are happening.

As far as sad versus depression. I think it is an important distinction. I feel the line does get blurred sometimes.

Oh I am positive that it does and the line will, as Lee points out, waver back and forth but I am not at all sure that the assertion that psychiatrists do nto understand or know the difference is a little OTT.

I have found, in talking to a lot of fellow ex-Scientologists that a lot of us have woefully ignorant perceptions of psychiatry. I think the general public has a large amount of ignorance on the subject but we ex(and current)Scientologists make the general public look fully informed. This is not something I am laying at other peoples' doors - it applied to me too. If my son's handicap had not put us into the special ed system where we met psychologists and psychiatrists and found, much to our surprise, that they knew far more about the mind and how to help than we had found at the Flag Land Base up to that point - I may not have been willing to look at what actually happens versus the rubbish that we were subjected to.

Again, in my experience though, it is the general practitioner who is doing the over-prescribing.

Krysti

Yes, I suspect that you are right - IMHO it may be an outgrowth of the HMO craze where MDs are hustled to make snap judgements and cut down the consultation time.