JBWriter
Happy Sapien
I'm indebted to every ESMB member - past & present - who've graciously shared their individual experiences while involved with Co$ and afterwards.
Each of the posted narratives educate me, a not particularly swift 'never-in', about the impact scientology-as-practiced has upon people, their lives, and the lives of their families.
From what I've read...
Some here originally became members of Co$ to help solve the world's problems.
Some became members of Co$ to obtain increased abilities and/or talents.
Some were attracted by the sci-fi aspects of Co$ and/or Hubbard's writing.
Some became members initially because another person sparked/piqued their interest in Co$.
What I wonder is, excluding 2nd and 3rd generation Co$ members because being 'born-in' doesn't really imply freedom of choice in the matter, does a correlation exist between the reason(s) a person joined Co$ and the reason(s) that same person left? If so, what is the correlation?
That is, if a person originally joined Co$ for altruistic reasons, was it the failure of Co$ to achieve/actualize those same altruistic goals that prompted a person to leave Co$?
Or does the original reason(s) for joining have nothing at all to do with leaving? (<---Johnny joined to obtain 'super-powers' but left because he read something on the internet about hubbard's fake diploma.)
After a romantic relationship ends, it's not at all unusual to discover that the thing that most attracted you to the person was, in the end, the very thing that drove you away. Of course, there isn't always a correlation between initial attraction and ending the relationship, but it's worth taking a look to see how a relationship began and ended -- if only to learn what to do/not do in a future relationship. Such review is best done with ice cream, btw. Or wine. But not both.
And, yes, the cruel & abusive policies as employed/enforced by Co$ certainly do account for many people's departure, so an alternate way to pose my question is: Does a correlation exist between the original reason(s) a person joined and the particular type of policy that ended membership? (Ex.: Johnny joined Co$ to help solve the world's problems but left because he was expected to disconnect from close friends who, in his own mind, were not 'PTS'. He joined to help bad people become good but Co$ misidentified good people as bad and, in so doing, failed to achieve the purported goal that originally attracted Johnny.)
If we could determine, generally speaking, that: people who joined Co$ for X & Y reasons often left because of Z reason; or, people who joined for B reason usually left because of X, Y, or Z reason; then I think we might learn how to more effectively grasp the attention of the people still involved with Co$.
tl;dr version: Did what got you into Co$ play any part in getting you out? How so?
JB
Each of the posted narratives educate me, a not particularly swift 'never-in', about the impact scientology-as-practiced has upon people, their lives, and the lives of their families.
From what I've read...
Some here originally became members of Co$ to help solve the world's problems.
Some became members of Co$ to obtain increased abilities and/or talents.
Some were attracted by the sci-fi aspects of Co$ and/or Hubbard's writing.
Some became members initially because another person sparked/piqued their interest in Co$.
What I wonder is, excluding 2nd and 3rd generation Co$ members because being 'born-in' doesn't really imply freedom of choice in the matter, does a correlation exist between the reason(s) a person joined Co$ and the reason(s) that same person left? If so, what is the correlation?
That is, if a person originally joined Co$ for altruistic reasons, was it the failure of Co$ to achieve/actualize those same altruistic goals that prompted a person to leave Co$?
Or does the original reason(s) for joining have nothing at all to do with leaving? (<---Johnny joined to obtain 'super-powers' but left because he read something on the internet about hubbard's fake diploma.)
After a romantic relationship ends, it's not at all unusual to discover that the thing that most attracted you to the person was, in the end, the very thing that drove you away. Of course, there isn't always a correlation between initial attraction and ending the relationship, but it's worth taking a look to see how a relationship began and ended -- if only to learn what to do/not do in a future relationship. Such review is best done with ice cream, btw. Or wine. But not both.
And, yes, the cruel & abusive policies as employed/enforced by Co$ certainly do account for many people's departure, so an alternate way to pose my question is: Does a correlation exist between the original reason(s) a person joined and the particular type of policy that ended membership? (Ex.: Johnny joined Co$ to help solve the world's problems but left because he was expected to disconnect from close friends who, in his own mind, were not 'PTS'. He joined to help bad people become good but Co$ misidentified good people as bad and, in so doing, failed to achieve the purported goal that originally attracted Johnny.)
If we could determine, generally speaking, that: people who joined Co$ for X & Y reasons often left because of Z reason; or, people who joined for B reason usually left because of X, Y, or Z reason; then I think we might learn how to more effectively grasp the attention of the people still involved with Co$.
tl;dr version: Did what got you into Co$ play any part in getting you out? How so?
JB
