Question for all former scientologists

[Romuva]

Personally ,I don't understand how Hubbard could make the theory
of engrams and the reactive mind when he wasn't even sure himself.

In Dianetics ,doesn't Hubbard actually write that he doesn't know where
the reactive mind is in the brain ,location wise and that one day
neurologists would make the discovery of where it was?

So later on there was some quasi-discovery made of the reactive mind?

I mean how much research is there to show the whole concept of conscious
and unconscious states and effect on unconscious state or states.Alot
of this is still being researched today.

I just seems like another example of Hubbard trying to alter a person's
perception or reality and agreeing to it.

If you make so many agreements after a while are you actually creating a
very powerful belief system in your mind?If your in a state of suggestion
that you believe there are answers because of a "technology" or you
look at your problems differently because perhaps you altered your perception
or reality of what you thought of previously?

In my opinion,I don't want to rule out any validity either ,I'm just curious what that validity is.To say something "works" is vague and doesn't explain.

 

[spbill]

In my opinion,I don't want to rule out any validity either ,I'm just curious what that validity is.To say something "works" is vague and doesn't explain.

IMHO, Dianetics "works" because it does seem able to reduce the negative effects of bad things which have happened in the past. After erasing a chain of engrams those "mental image pictures" no longer have command value over a person (sorry for the jargon, it's the easiest way to explain ).

Many have been helped by Dianetic auditing. Although Hubbard stopped claiming it "cured" anything, a lot of illness was found to be psychosomatic and Dianetic auditing proved to be effective in alleviating symptoms caused by a person's own mind. You will find thousands of testimonials raving about how people felt better after auditing, etc. and very few, if any stories saying "it didn't work for me".

I think we need a better explanation of *why* it worked though.
Bill

 

[Mick Wenlock]

IMHO, Dianetics "works" because it does seem able to reduce the negative effects of bad things which have happened in the past. After erasing a chain of engrams those "mental image pictures" no longer have command value over a person (sorry for the jargon, it's the easiest way to explain ).

Welll.. the first assumption - that this "chain" had "command value" over someone is doubtful at best - what does it mean, exactly? How to prove that such a concept even has any value?

Many have been helped by Dianetic auditing.

Two things - how many is "many" and what does "helped" mean in this usage?

Do you mean - there are a lot of people who felt better after talking to a person about their fears and concerns? Well, yeah I could go along with that. No harm done, sounds good and describes pretty much any great intimate talk.

Or do you mean something concrete? In which case what was the help, what did it do, where are the measurable results?

Although Hubbard stopped claiming it "cured" anything, a lot of illness was found to be psychosomatic

where did you get this gratuitous "factoid" from? Would you care to cite your source for your claim? Which medical journal or jouranls are we referring to?

and Dianetic auditing proved to be effective in alleviating symptoms caused by a person's own mind.

I'm sorry where is the proof you are referring to?

You will find thousands of testimonials raving about how people felt better after auditing, etc. and very few, if any stories saying "it didn't work for me"

How could that be? Well first of all, if you ask for "success stories" then people who don't have successes WONT WRITE ANYTHING. Hello????? So the amount doesn't mean anything at all - except to true believers of course.

If you wanted to get testimonials raving about something - go get people who are on speed, they will write GLOWING testimonials about how they feel. It doesn't 'prove' anything at all.

What would be interesting would be all the studies that were done following up the people who had dianetic auditing and who were "cured" (or at least felt wonderful after a session) to see whether they were healthier than their couterparts, whether conditions "handled" stayed "handled". We could sift through the studies including physiological data and so on.

Of course there would have had to have been studies, there would have had to have been results to follow up on.

But there was not.

I think we need a better explanation of *why* it worked though.
Bill

I think we need a better explanation of what "it" is.

 

[Zinjifar]

I think we need a better explanation of what "it" is.

I thought that was Clear! By the Law of Universal Tautology 'It' is 'whatever worked'. If it didn't 'work' it's not 'It'.

You are hereby assigned the condition of Merry-Go-Hubbard and ordered to heave yourself by your bootstraps back on your pony.

Zinj

 

[spbill]

Mick, I figured that post would elicit a demand for numbers

Welll.. the first assumption - that this "chain" had "command value" over someone is doubtful at best - what does it mean, exactly? How to prove that such a concept even has any value?

Chain means a series of past incidents related by similar content and command value is the ability of a past experience to re-impose itself on a person in the present.

Two things - how many is "many" and what does "helped" mean in this usage? Do you mean - there are a lot of people who felt better after talking to a person about their fears and concerns? Well, yeah I could go along with that. No harm done, sounds good and describes pretty much any great intimate talk.

That's what I meant, and if we start arguing about the meaning of help we'll be here a long time What "proof" would satisfy you? If you expect controlled studies conducted by independent investigators we both know they don't exist.

Well first of all, if you ask for "success stories" then people who don't have successes WONT WRITE ANYTHING. Hello?????

Granted, the PR machine of Scientology is geared up to show only positive results. However IMHO consumers who were not satisfied with a service they received are more likely to complain loudly than satisfied ones are to praise the service. People who feel ripped off tend to rant. Not within the cult of course, but to newspapers, authorities, the BBB etc. Based on the long time period Dianetic auditing has been delivered and the large number of people audited (I don't have exact numbers, ask the church ), it is my opinion that most were satisfied with the results.

What would be interesting would be all the studies that were done following up the people who had dianetic auditing and who were "cured" (or at least felt wonderful after a session) to see whether they were healthier than their couterparts, whether conditions "handled" stayed "handled". We could sift through the studies including physiological data and so on.

I'd love to see the results of those studies too. Are you volunteering to conduct one, or would you say there's no need because the results would be a foregone conclusion? The one study I found earlier where Dianetic auditors co-operated with an independent investigator did *not* support Hubbard's theory about engrams. I have no ready answer for that, no way to reconcile the results of the study with my own personal experience. But I'm not ready to throw in the towel, there must be some reasonable way to make sense of it.
Bill

 

[programmer_guy]

deleted as a duplicate. (I accidentally hit control keys on this laptop.)

 

[programmer_guy]

deleted as a duplicate

 

[programmer_guy]

Chain means a series of past incidents related by similar content and command value is the ability of a past experience to re-impose itself on a person in the present.

I think we Ex's already know what an engram "chain" is. That "chains" exist should be proven by an independent outside agency/group.

What "proof" would satisfy you? If you expect controlled studies conducted by independent investigators we both know they don't exist.

That is what is required in the scientific communities.

However IMHO consumers who were not satisfied with a service they received are more likely to complain loudly than satisfied ones are to praise the service.

This is true in the WOG world but not in Scientology. "Success Stories" (with cog and VGIs) are required OR someone (auditor and/or C/S) is going to cramming in Qual. That's the way it is in Scientology.

The one study I found earlier where Dianetic auditors co-operated with an independent investigator did *not* support Hubbard's theory about engrams.

That's correct. They "implanted" an engram on a volunteer during which they read some text from, I think, some physics text book to the volunteer. DMSMH claims that the "sonic"/words can be remembered in Dianetic auditing. The subsequent Dianetic auditing failed to recover those words.

You might refer to the Fischer study also. The link is on the Operation Clambake home page.

 

[lionheart]

Quote:
and Dianetic auditing proved to be effective in alleviating symptoms caused by a person's own mind.

I'm sorry where is the proof you are referring to?

Well speaking personally. I had a left-leg limp, where it sort of swung in an arc when walking. Caused some pain, sometimes. I ran out breaking my leg when tiny in session with Dianetics. Limp stopped, arcing walk stopped. Discomfort stopped.

Would I recommend anyone joining the CofS for auditing? No - too much baggage gets picked up.

Would I recommend anyone handling these things in the FZ - maybe - but I'm wary of too close an adherence to LRH's loopy SciFi.

Was I hypnotised by Dn auditing into believing the limp was cured? Maybe. But isn't there some scientific proof that hypnotism in the right hands can be helpful?

Did the limp and discomfort go? Seemed to. My footprints in the snow (before auditing showed a dragged arc from the left foot. My footprints in the snow (post auditing) didn't and still don't. Pretty conclusive physical evidence to me that something worked. The question is what exactly worked?

 

[Lulu Belle]

If you wanted to get testimonials raving about something - go get people who are on speed, they will write GLOWING testimonials about how they feel. It doesn't 'prove' anything at all.

LOL!!!!!

How true.

 

[Zinjifar]

Well speaking personally. I had a left-leg limp, where it sort of swung in an arc when walking. Caused some pain, sometimes. I ran out breaking my leg when tiny in session with Dianetics. Limp stopped, arcing walk stopped. Discomfort stopped.

Would I recommend anyone joining the CofS for auditing? No - too much baggage gets picked up.

Would I recommend anyone handling these things in the FZ - maybe - but I'm wary of too close an adherence to LRH's loopy SciFi.

Was I hypnotised by Dn auditing into believing the limp was cured? Maybe. But isn't there some scientific proof that hypnotism in the right hands can be helpful?

Did the limp and discomfort go? Seemed to. My footprints in the snow (before auditing showed a dragged arc from the left foot. My footprints in the snow (post auditing) didn't and still don't. Pretty conclusive physical evidence to me that something worked. The question is what exactly worked?

At the very least it sounds like a perfectly good placebo effect. Does 'run out' mean anything? Only that you *believed* in 'running out'.

Did you *really* break your leg while tiny? Do you know?

What are the odds that, if you, by whatever mechanism, were *convinced* that your limp was the result of carrying your car keys in your right pocket, and, you switched pockets, or put them in your jacket, that your limp would *also* have gone away?

On another level, do you just *think* your limp went away?

Hypnotism can do that pretty good too

Which is where it begins to get dangerous.

In the case of 'dianetics' (or Scn) auditing, along with whatever placebo effect you get that *may* be beneficial, you *also* get a shiny new 'conviction' that *Scientology* cured you.

Thank you Ron!

Zinj

 

[spbill]

I think we Ex's already know what an engram "chain" is.

Mick asked me what a "chain" was - I realize most Ex's already know the jargon. The Scieno tech dictionary is available on-line somewhere if anyone needs to look up words.

That "chains" exist should be proven by an independent outside agency/group. That is what is required in the scientific communities.

Ah yes, do engrams exist, do chains exist... I just saw a post on ARS where Scieno bot Trudy Johnson claims "Psychs invented it and cannot prove it exists" - she is using the same argument against them. Wonder if she knows that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones? Here's the link:
http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.r...1bd42/9248aee404b42d52?hl=en#9248aee404b42d52

You might refer to the Fischer study also. The link is on the Operation Clambake home page.

The link was already posted earlier in this thread.
Bill

 

[lionheart]

Did you *really* break your leg while tiny? Do you know?

Sorry, yes I didn't make that clear. Yes, I defintely broke my leg - my mother told me not to make a fuss when I was screaming with agony! Aged four, I think, pre-school anyway. I remember the plaster and the indignity of going back into a pushchair! This was a perfectly easily remembered fact long before contacting the incident in auditing.

On another level, do you just *think* your limp went away?

Well the changed footprint pattern in the snow was evidence to my eyes that it had gone. From when I was old enough to notice these things, there was always a dragged pattern from my left foot in the snow. As kids,we could always tell which were my footprints by the treads left in the snow. Also used to wear down the heel on my left shoe more than the right.

I was self-concious about it and used to try to make my foot go straight and that used to make it ache.

After "running" the incident in Dn, about twenty years later, I noticed the pattern was no longer made in the snow. (without any conscious effort to stop my foot doing it)

In the case of 'dianetics' (or Scn) auditing, along with whatever placebo effect you get that *may* be beneficial, you *also* get a shiny new 'conviction' that *Scientology* cured you.

Thank you Ron!

Zinj

Well, I think I'm pretty open-minded about it - doesn't my posting demonstrate that? I just offered this because Mike Wenlock asked for:

"Quote:
and Dianetic auditing proved to be effective in alleviating symptoms caused by a person's own mind.

I'm sorry where is the proof you are referring to?"​

I'm not saying it is proof that it worked exactly as Ron said it did, I'm just saying I did get evidence, as physical and testable (by me), as anything could be that a physical change took place. Like I said, the question is what exactly worked?

If we have open minds and not closed ones like the poor scientologists have, then it is a valid question to ask. I have every reason to suppose others got similarly verifiable gains from auditing (having given and received plenty myself).

So I am suggesting that rather than dismiss the whole subject out of hand, because of Ron's character failings, we should be open to the possiblity that amongst the DN/Scn tech there may be something valid.

 

[spbill]

I've been trying to reconcile my personal experience that Dianetic auditing works with a test result which found auditors could not recover words from an "engram" received by a volunteer in an artificially-induced coma. Clearly, the way Hubbard had it figured in DMSMH doesn't stand up. What's questionable to me is that everything is recorded in cells even when the person is unconscious. Hubbard maintained that it was, and that all the detail could be recovered with Dianetic auditing.

Let's hypothesize instead that incoming sense data has to go through the person's perception process *before* it gets recorded as a memory. So when the person is in a coma, for instance, sensory details would *not* be recorded. For me, perception is the process of mocking up or projecting an image of what's going on outside that best fits the incoming sensory data. I have observed that when some small amount of sensory data is missing, my mind/brain will automatically fill in the detail with an educated guess. I first noticed this one day when I glanced very quickly at a partially-obscured newspaper headline. I "saw" the complete headline in my mind, all in the same typeface, etc. Only when I looked more closely did I notice my mind/brain had been fooled! One word in the headline was quite different from the word I had "seen" a moment earlier. Changed the whole meaning. I've since noticed this mechanism in many different areas. Easy to see in someone who is hard-of-hearing. They'll "hear" words which have similar sounds and which make some sense - but not necessarily the words spoken.

Back to Dianetics: my theory is that in an auditing session the pc can dub in missing details instead of "recalling" them - and the result will be exactly the same: pc feels better, incident's command value reduced. This automatic dub-in process is quite similar to one way we recover intelligence from a weak radio signal in the presence of noise. We have a set of possible messages which could have been transmitted, and we match them against what was received in a maximum-likelihood decoder. It helps if all the messages in the set are as mutually distinctive as possible. It also accounts for dreams. During deep sleep the brain seems to be somewhat disconnected from the body's afferent and efferent nerve channels. Small disturbances do not rouse the subject and when he dreams he is running, etc, the body's limbs do not move. During the dream, the content could very well be supplied by this automatic "dub-in" mechanism, based on the limited sense data actually reaching the person. His mind is trying to perceive what little information is getting through from the outside. It does that by mocking up a scenario that best fits, drawing on past experience. It also explains why when a person is near-death or reports an out-of-body experience the believers often report seeing God or angels whereas non-believers never report that. It also explains Hubbard's OT-3 story. Much detail missing so the mind/brain just makes it up. The problem is that in general this goes on at an unconscious level and we aren't aware we're doing it. So we can't tell the difference between reality and the fantasy mock-ups we're creating ourselves.

OK, that's the theory. I don't think this mechanism is unique to me - anyone should be able to observe it in action.

Now let me have it with both barrels
Bill

 

[lionheart]

Great theory Bill! That also would explain the past-life/popular culture discussion going on in the other thread. (http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=423&page=3)

The PC could be dubbing in some details instead of recalling them. And the PC's "imagination" is dubbing in the gaps in whatever perceptions from a past life are coming in, but the dub-in would be limited by the PC's current experience/education/culture.

I remember in a book that investigated Bliss experiences, the quality of the details of the bliss were coloured by the person's religion and beliefs, but the emotional impact and the consequent behaviour and attitude to life was more or less consistant.

I get the dub-in/misinterpretation like your newspaper headline example quite often. An object half glimpsed can appear as one thing until I take a second more thorough look. Same with turning a radio-on, initially, for a split second the sound can be interpreted as something completely different from what it actually is.

Aren't SP's just great! :amen: So SPBill what do you conclude as regards how this could be applied to auditing?

 

[spbill]

I get the dub-in/misinterpretation like your newspaper headline example quite often. An object half glimpsed can appear as one thing until I take a second more thorough look. Same with turning a radio-on, initially, for a split second the sound can be interpreted as something completely different from what it actually is.

Exactly. You know what I'm talking about. Goes to show duplication *can* occur on this thread Thanks for the feedback.

So SPBill what do you conclude as regards how this could be applied to auditing?

First we need to find out exactly how this mechanism works and to become fully aware of our own role in it. That should make the auditor a safer terminal.

Bill

 

[Alan]

First we need to find out exactly how this mechanism works and to become fully aware of our own role in it. That should make the auditor a safer terminal.

Bill

One of the reasons there is so many variables in processing has to do with:

One: The processor; what identity are they in?

Two: The client; what identity are they viewing the incident from?

An identity is a pre-programmed filter mechanism - it is created to only observe what it wants to observe and filter out anything that it deems unwanted. In other words even if what your view is exactly as it is.....the identity you are viewing from will employ selective views and selective importances.

Basically an Identity is the stable datum used to hold off an area or areas of confusion.

The way Scio and Dianetics is positioned you WILL NOT get the pure truth of what is truly there.

Thus you get dub-in and false images.

It is easy to correct on non Scio's.......but most Scio's believe the have the truth........so they filter and select their "truths".

Which makes for the damdest false conditions you have ever encountered.

Processes run with no agendas attached will guide you to the truth.

If you have the exact truth - you will experience an instant upgrade of your PT existence and mood level, an upgrade of your connections, an upgrade of your position in life, an upgrade in who you connect to.

It is all so simple.

Alan

 

[jodie]

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?

A bit of a late reply, but what the heck, for archival purposes.

I actually intensely disliked psychiatry BEFORE I got into the cult, owing to some really botched cases, and some incredible arrogance, and some events I was privy to. I avoided the profession like the plague long, long before I got into Scientology. So when I eventually bumped into Scientology, it was one of those further reinforcements for me - hey, they believe the same as me, something else we have in common!

I did find Scientology/CCHR's approach to the psychiatry issue embarrassing, though - it was hardly a professional way of expressing disagreement.

Now that I have been out of Scientology a long while, I am comfortable with good psychotherapy and counselling, but I remain forever wary of psychiatry. And that has nothing to do with Scientology at all, but the original stuff from when I was very young - I never personally had any brushes with psychiatry, thank god, but friends did.

- jodie

 

[freet43]

At the very least it sounds like a perfectly good placebo effect.

In the case of 'dianetics' (or Scn) auditing, along with whatever placebo effect you get that *may* be beneficial

Zinj

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.

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?

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.

Who cares if it's called a placebo effect.

 

[Nec_V20]

spbill,

I've been trying to reconcile my personal experience that Dianetic auditing works with a test result which found auditors could not recover words from an "engram" received by a volunteer in an artificially-induced coma.

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.

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.