Typing on my cellphone, I apologize for typos. Second, if somehow I upset or insult anyone, it was not my intention to do so. Alright...
Nowadays, the internet plus somewhat mainstream media coverage, including news and shows like South Park, would pretty much supply most people with information on Scn, even if they had never heard of it. And let's suppose someone encounters an org first, there's plenty of readily accessible information to be had.
I know this was not always the case, back when libraries were about the most flexible source of information people had access to.
I have never been in Scn or any related groups, have been researching it and coercive groups for 6 years or so, and actually have had first-hand experience with sleep deprivation and its effects on decision making... That proved to be an interesting incident at work... but anyway...
But even before the psychological tricks start coming into play, and assuming a person honestly doesn't know anything about Scn except what they're told by a current member/reg, I still have trouble understanding how people believe some, if not many, of Scn's claims.
I am assuming upon first arrival, the hard sell isn't quite as extreme, for that would freak people out (it eventually did with me...not a member but I've been to big blue and spoken with members, etc). So overwhelming people probably isn't employed at this point...or is it?
I guess I'm wondering how,given a moderately relaxed atmosphere where someone asks what Scn is all about, how does one's basic critical thinking get circumvented? Being polite, keeping your concerns and seemingly apparent contradictions to oneself, leaving quietly after would be no big surprise. But to come back, after having had time to research or ask others their thoughts...? Why leave thinking it's bunk only to come back unless it's to clarify and discuss concerns? How would anyone come back, genuinely interested?
Basic stuff: I get a copy of Dianetics. Maybe I have some periphery awareness of it from TV... Assuming I could plow through it in all its turgid splendor, how do people not wonder, if it can do all it says it can, why isn't it more well-known and in use?
How do women ignore the claims that most of them have attempted abortions numerous times when...well, they haven't? How do these things not make one question the claims being set forth? Heck, a lot of claims in DMSMH are radical ones, easily tested and proven.
The claim that it is a science, yet there is little written about it outside of Scn? The way the e-meter supposedly functions; do people really believe that thoughts hold enough mass to affect the machine?
I'm ignoring some of the more..."advanced"(?) inconsistencies and conflicts, ones which may require even an intuitional understanding of the scientific process, logical fallacies, etc. It just seems that with so many blatant claims and assertions, people would be more suspicious of those claims just via basic curiosity and logic.
I'm sure the "medical profession and the psychs are keeping info about Diabetics hidden so they can make money" argument gets thrown around, but I mean come on...usually you want to keep your conspiracy theories under wraps till a few weeks in, ya? If there's anything that's gonna tip me off, it's conspiracy claims...
Sorry if this is a bit long and rambling, slept very poorly, couldn't really get my question out with more eloquence...
Is the seeming promise of a more fun and free life enough to make one ignore such glaring inconsistencies? If that's the case... I still just don't understand how people don't see red flags super early on. Insight?
Nowadays, the internet plus somewhat mainstream media coverage, including news and shows like South Park, would pretty much supply most people with information on Scn, even if they had never heard of it. And let's suppose someone encounters an org first, there's plenty of readily accessible information to be had.
I know this was not always the case, back when libraries were about the most flexible source of information people had access to.
I have never been in Scn or any related groups, have been researching it and coercive groups for 6 years or so, and actually have had first-hand experience with sleep deprivation and its effects on decision making... That proved to be an interesting incident at work... but anyway...
But even before the psychological tricks start coming into play, and assuming a person honestly doesn't know anything about Scn except what they're told by a current member/reg, I still have trouble understanding how people believe some, if not many, of Scn's claims.
I am assuming upon first arrival, the hard sell isn't quite as extreme, for that would freak people out (it eventually did with me...not a member but I've been to big blue and spoken with members, etc). So overwhelming people probably isn't employed at this point...or is it?
I guess I'm wondering how,given a moderately relaxed atmosphere where someone asks what Scn is all about, how does one's basic critical thinking get circumvented? Being polite, keeping your concerns and seemingly apparent contradictions to oneself, leaving quietly after would be no big surprise. But to come back, after having had time to research or ask others their thoughts...? Why leave thinking it's bunk only to come back unless it's to clarify and discuss concerns? How would anyone come back, genuinely interested?
Basic stuff: I get a copy of Dianetics. Maybe I have some periphery awareness of it from TV... Assuming I could plow through it in all its turgid splendor, how do people not wonder, if it can do all it says it can, why isn't it more well-known and in use?
How do women ignore the claims that most of them have attempted abortions numerous times when...well, they haven't? How do these things not make one question the claims being set forth? Heck, a lot of claims in DMSMH are radical ones, easily tested and proven.
The claim that it is a science, yet there is little written about it outside of Scn? The way the e-meter supposedly functions; do people really believe that thoughts hold enough mass to affect the machine?
I'm ignoring some of the more..."advanced"(?) inconsistencies and conflicts, ones which may require even an intuitional understanding of the scientific process, logical fallacies, etc. It just seems that with so many blatant claims and assertions, people would be more suspicious of those claims just via basic curiosity and logic.
I'm sure the "medical profession and the psychs are keeping info about Diabetics hidden so they can make money" argument gets thrown around, but I mean come on...usually you want to keep your conspiracy theories under wraps till a few weeks in, ya? If there's anything that's gonna tip me off, it's conspiracy claims...
Sorry if this is a bit long and rambling, slept very poorly, couldn't really get my question out with more eloquence...
Is the seeming promise of a more fun and free life enough to make one ignore such glaring inconsistencies? If that's the case... I still just don't understand how people don't see red flags super early on. Insight?