anonycat?

[Adam7986]

But that assumes the fresh meat are already part of and identifying with the group.

I'm thinking that if I had ever gone into an Org as a college student, I would have been one of the many who took one look at the TRs and said "horseshit!", leaving never to return. Some stay, some don't. You're saying all those who stay are more controllable, more gullible. But looking at all the cross section of personalities on this board, I'm not sure I buy that. There is something good to sitting down and thingking about your problems and having someone sympathetic help you do that. Not that there aren't better ways to do that, and not that $CN doesn't pervert that, but it is a source of that PBO good feeling, and in some cases, people appear to have changed their behavior for the better as a result.

There is more than just one factor at work here. There are many psychological principles that override a person's ability to make a reasonable and logical decision.

If you want to learn the tricks of the trade there's a book called "Get Anyone To Do Anything". That is how I freed myself of the bonds of Scientology. A lot of anti-cult books are informative but not conclusive. That book explains exactly how people get duped into Scientology from the moment they walk in the door until they leave and are brought back again, and again, and again.

ETA: And NO (surprise) that's NOT a "scientology" book. It's a book I stumbled on through Amazon and downloaded to my smartphone to read. It's a fucking amazing read. Everyone who's been in the cult should read it. I doubt they will but they should. I didn't have one of those cult-induced "oh my jesus god in heaven i just came in my pants" plastic grin moments. I just sat there and went "hmmm...so that's how they did it...."

 

[Panda Termint]

Oh, I understand you completely. There's plenty of understanding. But you're right that I will not agree.

The fact that you're attempting to assert your opinion by using my alleged "inexperience" as a way to condescend and patronize me is the true mark of a Scientologist.

It's only a matter of time before you get angry because you can't find harmony between the harsh objective truth and your subjective idea of "what's true is true for me". If you want proof then you can believe that fire isn't hot and stick your hand in a flame--let me know how that goes for you.

Your reply to my post demonstrates otherwise. Perhaps if you sought to accept more and judge less it might help you achieve your aims in this fight.

 

[Type4_PTS]

Yes. I agree but I will tell you for a fact that I NEVER would have continued with scientology for 34 years if I wasn't getting real, measurable, life-changing results from my participation. I'm not saying I couldn't have found those results elsewhere, I'm just saying that scientology is how I achieved them. I'm not going to delineate further on this subject.

I get that it was this way for you. But for others it was more like this.....

They could never quite catch up with the promised carrot. It was always on the next level.

 

[Panda Termint]

No arguments here, I've seen it many times!

 

[Gib]

Oh, I understand you completely. There's plenty of understanding. But you're right that I will not agree.

The fact that you're attempting to assert your opinion by using my alleged "inexperience" as a way to condescend and patronize me is the true mark of a Scientologist.

It's only a matter of time before you get angry because you can't find harmony between the harsh objective truth and your subjective idea of "what's true is true for me". If you want proof then you can believe that fire isn't hot and stick your hand in a flame--let me know how that goes for you.

Too funny Adam.

Panda is on your side. He ain't a scientologist.

Afterall, this is the Ex board. And believe me, he's an Ex.

 

[NoName]

I know your story Adam, but the above you quoted from some book or some place is filled with specialized words. And it is also highly evaluated of what to think.

Did not Hubbard do the same. :confused2:

And I am on your side, I too was once a member of the COS and am no longer in. I also was on staff and I also know many highly trained peeps and peeps who got up the bridge much higher than you. Same with Panda who is no longer in.

Just something to know and consider.

Adam cited and credited someone else's research in support of his own conclusion. Many reputable authors and researchers do that. Hubbard stole peoples' work and pawned it off as his own and made shit up to fill in the gaps.

I'm not sure how Adam's cut and paste job got you to a Hubbard comparison. :confused2:

 

[Adam7986]

Your reply to my post demonstrates otherwise. Perhaps if you sought to accept more and judge less it might help you achieve your aims in this fight.

I'm not judging. You are patronizing me and many others here by beating around the bush instead of asserting your point. You lack conviction and sincerity, which are two things I find in ready supply.

 

[NoName]

There is more than just one factor at work here. There are many psychological principles that override a person's ability to make a reasonable and logical decision.

If you want to learn the tricks of the trade there's a book called "Get Anyone To Do Anything". That is how I freed myself of the bonds of Scientology. A lot of anti-cult books are informative but not conclusive. That book explains exactly how people get duped into Scientology from the moment they walk in the door until they leave and are brought back again, and again, and again.

ETA: And NO (surprise) that's NOT a "scientology" book. It's a book I stumbled on through Amazon and downloaded to my smartphone to read. It's a fucking amazing read. Everyone who's been in the cult should read it. I doubt they will but they should. I didn't have one of those cult-induced "oh my jesus god in heaven i just came in my pants" plastic grin moments. I just sat there and went "hmmm...so that's how they did it...."

I will add that one to my reading list.

 

[Panda Termint]

I'm not judging. You are patronizing me and many others here by beating around the bush instead of asserting your point. You lack conviction and sincerity, which are two things I find in ready supply.

Lol @ the "not judging".

I'm (a) not patronising you and (b) not beating around the bush and (c) have no lack of conviction or sincerity. You're imagining those things. I'm simply trying to educate you, that's a completely different thing.

 

[Adam7986]

I will add that one to my reading list.

You will not be disappointed. I couldn't stop reading it. Anytime I encountered a situation I kept referring back to it to see how to approach it. A lot of the advice it gives on how to handle situations which involve delivering bad news or owning up to mistakes I use on a regular basis. It's improved my friendships in life and helped me navigate difficult business and social situations.

It's really an amazing book and less than half the length of Dianetics with infinitely more valuable information.

 

[Adam7986]

Lol @ the "not judging".

I'm (a) not patronising you and (b) not beating around the bush and (c) have no lack of conviction or sincerity. You're imagining those things. I'm simply trying to educate you, that's a completely different thing.

Lol. You assume that I need and/or want education from you. I'm trying to prove a point in an argument not educate you.

The fact that you are trying to "educate" me serves as proof that you are patronizing me.

Your need to educate others serves as proof that you are seeking acceptance of principles that you hold true and is indicative of your own insecurities.

 

[NoName]

You will not be disappointed. I couldn't stop reading it. Anytime I encountered a situation I kept referring back to it to see how to approach it. A lot of the advice it gives on how to handle situations which involve delivering bad news or owning up to mistakes I use on a regular basis. It's improved my friendships in life and helped me navigate difficult business and social situations.

It's really an amazing book and less than half the length of Dianetics with infinitely more valuable information.

You'd probably like "Dropping the Pink Elephant". It's been helpful to me for delivering bad news, owning up to mistakes, etc. It's short and entertaining, though not helpful for understanding cult dynamics.

 

[Gib]

Adam cited and credited someone else's research in support of his own conclusion. Many reputable authors and researchers do that. Hubbard stole peoples' work and pawned it off as his own and made shit up to fill in the gaps.

I'm not sure how Adam's cut and paste job got you to a Hubbard comparison. :confused2:

Adam cited and credited someone else's research in support of his own conclusion.

True, did Adam verify or just read anothers viewpoit,

Many reputable authors and researchers do that

How do we know that?

Hubbard stole peoples' work and pawned it off as his own and made shit up to fill in the gaps.

I don't disagree.

 

[Panda Termint]

Lol. You assume that I need and/or want education from you. I'm trying to prove a point in an argument not educate you.

The fact that you are trying to "educate" me serves as proof that you are patronizing me.

Your need to educate others serves as proof that you are seeking acceptance of principles that you hold true and is indicative of your own insecurities.

OK, I'll leave you to your misinformed views, then. Bye.

 

[Adam7986]

You'd probably like "Dropping the Pink Elephant". It's been helpful to me for delivering bad news, owning up to mistakes, etc. It's short and entertaining, though not helpful for understanding cult dynamics.

I'll check that out for sure! Thanks.

You'd be surprised at what can give you insight into the dynamics of a cult.

 

[Adam7986]

[h=4]Anchoring Effect[/h]Also known as the relativity trap, this is the tendency we have to compare and contrast only a limited set of items. It's called the anchoring effect because we tend to fixate on a value or number that in turn gets compared to everything else. The classic example is an item at the store that's on sale; we tend to see (and value) the difference in price, but not the overall price itself. This is why some restaurant menus feature very expensive entrees, while also including more (apparently) reasonably priced ones. It's also why, when given a choice, we tend to pick the middle option — not too expensive, and not too cheap.

Oh hayyyy what did we find here?

http://io9.com/5974468/the-most-common-cognitive-biases-that-prevent-you-from-being-rational

 

[Adam7986]

OK, I'll leave you to your misinformed views, then. Bye.

Guess WHAT?

Psychology explains that one TOO OMG

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Avoidance_conditioning

Avoidance conditioning occurs where a subject learns behaviour preventing the occurence of an aversive stimulus. This has been extensively studied as an operant conditioning procedure. It should be compared with escape conditioning in which behavior is learnt to terminate the noxious stimuli.

 

[Gib]

Oh hayyyy what did we find here?

http://io9.com/5974468/the-most-common-cognitive-biases-that-prevent-you-from-being-rational

yes, I have experienced that in my life.

I have chosen the most expensive items on some things I have bought.

And I have chosen some middle priced items.

And I have chosen some lower priced items.

 

[NoName]

True, did Adam verify or just read anothers viewpoit,

I took his posts to be personal examples illustrating why he believed a particular theory or viewpoint to be the correct one. That's open to intetpretation though.

How do we know that?

.

That's how things work in authorship / academia. There are volumes devoted to this - like the Chicago Manual of Style, MLA handbook, APA citation handbook, etc. I've been to graduate school so your question seems like you're asking me how I know the sky is blue. Unless I'm misunderstanding you badly....?

 

[Gib]

Guess WHAT?

Psychology explains that one TOO OMG

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Avoidance_conditioning

This next statement by me is just my IMHO, and that's all, and it has nothing to do with scientology.

But, psychology as you post in your links and others I have read,

are all based on observation after the fact and then trying to classify it

as human behavior.

Which may or may not be true. That's all I'm say'in. Just an observation by me alone.

You see, it's explaining after the fact of something happening.