Breaking Cognitive Dissonance...

[clamicide]

First of all, I apologize..I'm so busy IRL and dealing with a lot of stuff, that i'm not on the boards right now. BUT, I've been plagued with a particular post, that I'm having a hard time finding, but still need I have to reply to. Life is a bitch sometimes.

The post had to do with being shocking to break the cognitive dissonance with cult members.

And...the thing was, the stuff the poster was doing was not "shocking" to cult members.

Seriously...that sort of thing might help folks looking into the cult, or fringies who are new. But, please....don't claim to be an expert. I'm not talking out of my azz...I confirmed what had been me bothering about this post with someone who is a cult counselling expert, has testified in DC and knows their "schtuff" and confirmed that I might be on the right track.

Scio members are indoctrinated to believe that the protesters are psychotic religious bigot SPs who will say whatever...so when you say crazy stuff...it might seem like it's "shocking" to you, but it's just something they EXPECT you to do. I'm still in contact with current members, and that's how they see it.

Now....talking about baseball scores. Yeah...well...honestly. Here's a cultie who believes that all those protesting are nutso SP religious bigots. Then, he meets someone who is REAL and chats about baseball. Which do you think is more shocking to him? The guy who yells crazy stuff, like he had been briefed about? or the guy who just is really cool and nice.....which do you honestly think will screw with the cognitive dissonance more? and which re-inforces the brainwashing of the cult?

Honestly, the thing that screwed me up was meeting an awesome chick whose life was saved by Prozac. THAT will start cracking the walls. People screaming shite about the cult? Forget it. We were all briefed on that stuff...meeting real people...nice people-- those were the things that messed with most of us. In fact, when I got out, and I started reading some stuff by Steve Hassan...and he mentioned about how he'd buy a cup of coffee and chat with a cult member if he met them, it totally made sense. Seriously...do some research on folks that truly KNOW about cultdom and what really ends up helping.

 

[nexus100]

So, who won the Mariner game?

 

[Good twin]

I love you Nexus.

 

[MrNobody]

This is a blog which might make some Scientologists think: http://askthescientologist.blogspot.com/

Hope this helps

 

[nexus100]

 

[Tiger Lily]

I do love this board!

Clami great point. I think that's spot on. Cognitive dissonance is when you find out that wogs are actually smart and aware, and that "SP's" are not DB's. . . that'll mess with a Scientologists stable data about as fast as anything.

Definitely it's something to think about when talking to those who are well indoctrinated.

-TL

 

[clamicide]

So, who won the Mariner game?

blech....the only thing I hate about Portland is that the closest MLB team is the Mariners (oh, and crazy hipsters). At least my ChiSox took 3 out of 4 against the Yanks. And I'm still riding high on Buehrle's perfect game....

 

[Feral]

Good point Clammy

 

[bluewiggirl]

The only problem with this is that you can't get an army doing that. I talked with a Scientologist in Germany for months. I tried to steer the conversation away from anon and scientology as much as I could, tried to be nice and reasonable with him the whole time. Nothing came of it. Maybe something will in a year's time, maybe it already has, maybe it never will. I probably will never know. And so that looks like months wasted. I know that it's not a waste, but it's completely crushing to morale to put in so much work and see no results.

I'm all for people trying this, I know it will help some people get out. But there's no way that most of the people protesting right now will switch to those tactics, and if they did there's a very strong chance that they'd be gone before you knew it.

 

[FlunkedForLaughing]

Good post Clamicide.

I think the successful thing is whatever it takes to cause someone to say "the church/Tech says one thing, but I am observing something else". It causes the mind to start to working to solve this dilema. It is going to be different for different people - shocking, nice, or something in between.

For example, when I first heard about the Anon protests early last year, I learned about it from an email I received from a dedicated Scn. He was letting his fellow Scn's know about the attacks on the church, so we could all stand shoulder to shoulder in the fight. He had a link to the famous YouTube Anon video about distroying the church.

When I read the email and viewed the YouTube video, I knew something huge was happening, the likes of which had never happened against the CO$ ever before. (Here's where the cognitive dissonance started in me.) I had to know what it was all about. Why were these Anonymous people fighting the church? Were a bunch of SP's really banding together? What were they protesting about (was it spiritual freedom? TWTH? Because CO$ was against Psych drugs?)? I really didn't know. It didn't make sense to me at the time.

I forwarded that email to my wife. She read it and deleted it because it was just entheta. She got a little mad at me about it too.

Two completely different reactions to the same email. I think the CO$ programming/training/indoctrination/brainwashing gets a Scientologist to automatically react like my wife. They instantly put up a defense to explain it away, as opposed to really listening and looking and finding out what's up. For whatever reason I was able to put this reaction aside long enough to stumble upon the truth, and then I couldn't stop. I was obsessed for the first several months to find out what's online. I was shocked at what I found. Then I ended up here.

FFL

 

[clamicide]

Good post Clamicide.

I think the successful thing is whatever it takes to cause someone to say "the church/Tech says one thing, but I am observing something else". It causes the mind to start to working to solve this dilema. It is going to be different for different people - shocking, nice, or something in between.

For example, when I first heard about the Anon protests early last year, I learned about it from an email I received from a dedicated Scn. He was letting his fellow Scn's know about the attacks on the church, so we could all stand shoulder to shoulder in the fight. He had a link to the famous YouTube Anon video about distroying the church.

When I read the email and viewed the YouTube video, I knew something huge was happening, the likes of which had never happened against the CO$ ever before. (Here's where the cognitive dissonance started in me.) I had to know what it was all about. Why were these Anonymous people fighting the church? Were a bunch of SP's really banding together? What were they protesting about (was it spiritual freedom? TWTH? Because CO$ was against Psych drugs?)? I really didn't know. It didn't make sense to me at the time.

I forwarded that email to my wife. She read it and deleted it because it was just entheta. She got a little mad at me about it too.

Two completely different reactions to the same email. I think the CO$ programming/training/indoctrination/brainwashing gets a Scientologist to automatically react like my wife. They instantly put up a defense to explain it away, as opposed to really listening and looking and finding out what's up. For whatever reason I was able to put this reaction aside long enough to stumble upon the truth, and then I couldn't stop. I was obsessed for the first several months to find out what's online. I was shocked at what I found. Then I ended up here.

FFL

Amen. Glad you are here. Kind of wondering why there are almost no replies to this thread...but, wtf? and trying not to get paranoid that my account was frozen after i posted it. I'm just so familiar with cognitive dissonance...and I know folks who are still connected to the cult...and so I hear how they react to various tactics. i just care about them. Most folks who join CoS are doing it to "save people' and "save the planet". They arent' the bad guys....they were shafted and need some nice caring folks to take care of them and help them out of the mind control...

 

[FlunkedForLaughing]

I think it probably happens in stages, where a bunch of little things add up, and finally they start to look for honest answers.

If any lurkers are reading this, and still going through the stages of looking for honest answers, here's something I figured out the other day. Maybe it will help. One of the little lies that I just realized is when Scientology claims that it's an applied religious philosophy. It doesn't require any belief. It only requires you to try it and apply it.

How many times have I heard that? How many times have I said that to others? Lots.

In reality it does require belief in the idea that the entire agonizing future of this planet, every man woman and child on it, depends upon what you do here and now with Scientology. And that it's a deadly serious game, and if we don't make it out this time, we might never have another chance again.

That requires belief. That's not a fact, it's not guaranteed to be true or false. It's just something you believe on faith. Let's compare that statement with something a great religious person said a long time ago "Whoever believes in me shall not perish, but have everlasting life". That's not a fact either. Same type of belief is required in both statements.

Some people accept the claim of "no belief required" without even thinking about it. Scientologists think "Scientology is the only hope for mankind" is a fact, not a belief. It's a belief, and I don't happen to believe it's true.

FFL

 

[Lee_from_phx]

Trying to reach the people who are currently in the cult is a poor use of time and effort.

Those with any sense will leave on their own, sooner or later. Those who don't have any sense would have fallen prey to something even if the cult didn't exist. $cientology is NOT the only cult that exists. There are many others, and the MO of all of them is frightfully similar to that of $cientology. Same old song and dance, just a different tune. I shall have to post an excerpt from a book by Theodore Dalrymple in which he describes a cult called Jesus' Army that has blossomed in the UK. Were one to replace every instance of Jesus' Army from his essay, and replace it with Scientology, the accuracy of the whole would be unaffected.

Cults prey upon the naive, the weak minded, the emotionally vulnerable, the desperate, and the lost. The best way to deal with them is not by trying to persuade their victims of the error of their ways, but by working to inform the public of the truth about the cult in question. This permanently reduces the number of potential victims that the cult has to prey upon.

This is why protests are so effective and so maddening to the the cult of $cientology.

 

[KnightVision]

I agree with this. Most often it is those who have already noticed something doesn't give in sci, with sci, with lconh or their non enlightened status that are subsequently drawn to look and read about what critics have to say. 'The bubble bursts from within'... the same place whence one got 'hooked'. But that doesn't mean that it's useless to try. Given the declining statistics there are more on their way out than going in, just that expecting an exodus from criticizing from the outside is unrealistic.

Trying to reach the people who are currently in the cult is a poor use of time and effort.

Those with any sense will leave on their own, sooner or later. Those who don't have any sense would have fallen prey to something even if the cult didn't exist. $cientology is NOT the only cult that exists. There are many others, and the MO of all of them is frightfully similar to that of $cientology. Same old song and dance, just a different tune. I shall have to post an excerpt from a book by Theodore Dalrymple in which he describes a cult called Jesus' Army that has blossomed in the UK. Were one to replace every instance of Jesus' Army from his essay, and replace it with Scientology, the accuracy of the whole would be unaffected.

Cults prey upon the naive, the weak minded, the emotionally vulnerable, the desperate, and the lost. The best way to deal with them is not by trying to persuade their victims of the error of their ways, but by working to inform the public of the truth about the cult in question. This permanently reduces the number of potential victims that the cult has to prey upon.

This is why protests are so effective and so maddening to the the cult of $cientology.

 

[Tiger Lily]

I think it probably happens in stages, where a bunch of little things add up, and finally they start to look for honest answers.

If any lurkers are reading this, and still going through the stages of looking for honest answers, here's something I figured out the other day. Maybe it will help. One of the little lies that I just realized is when Scientology claims that it's an applied religious philosophy. It doesn't require any belief. It only requires you to try it and apply it.

How many times have I heard that? How many times have I said that to others? Lots.

In reality it does require belief in the idea that the entire agonizing future of this planet, every man woman and child on it, depends upon what you do here and now with Scientology. And that it's a deadly serious game, and if we don't make it out this time, we might never have another chance again.

That requires belief. That's not a fact, it's not guaranteed to be true or false. It's just something you believe on faith. Let's compare that statement with something a great religious person said a long time ago "Whoever believes in me shall not perish, but have everlasting life". That's not a fact either. Same type of belief is required in both statements.

Some people accept the claim of "no belief required" without even thinking about it. Scientologists think "Scientology is the only hope for mankind" is a fact, not a belief. It's a belief, and I don't happen to believe it's true.

FFL

Jeez! Where were you 20 years ago!? That would have cracked it for me.

Great post!!

-TL

 

[nexus100]

blech....the only thing I hate about Portland is that the closest MLB team is the Mariners (oh, and crazy hipsters). At least my ChiSox took 3 out of 4 against the Yanks. And I'm still riding high on Buehrle's perfect game....

Hey, the Chisox were my favorite team in the early 60's. My aunt used to play as kids with Louis Aparicio in Venezuela. He and Nellie Fox my favorite players, and even after being away for decades I loved the WS win.

The M's will rise again, though, don't lose hope, with the management team now in.

At least that's what I'm telling myself.

 

[uniquemand]

Yelling at people does nothing for them. Big billboards can get their attention momentarily.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the fact that there ARE protesters is the most important thing. What they do or say might impact, slightly, but just the fact of their existence is undeniable and a source of curiosity for the scios. They might believe the bull that protesters are all paid by the psychs (I know I'm well paid by Lilly, and can put in a word for you other protesters if you have't been receiving your checks). They might not believe it.

The continued existence of protesters helps. However, it's counter-productive if the protesters are seen as trying to destroy the "religion", or as antagonistic to scientologists, rather than as people protesting in a civil fashion about things that have to do with human rights or abuse of the law.

Sadly, the scios won't come over to play with the Anons, I know from experience (at least when they are there in any kind of numbers). That would be the best opportunity to "get into comm" with them.

I don't know what the best method to get close to scios and help them break out is, but I feel that eventually they will leave if the orgs are shown to be unsuccessful: Scientology's biggest bragging point is that they are successful, expanding and "winning". When this is shown to be false, the cognitive dissonance really sets in. Sure, there's lots of reasons why they might not be winning, such as "bad SPs", or whatever, but when they aren't winning, all but the most brainwashed are starting to think... "maybe there's a problem?"

 

[lkwdblds]

I think it probably happens in stages, where a bunch of little things add up, and finally they start to look for honest answers.

If any lurkers are reading this, and still going through the stages of looking for honest answers, here's something I figured out the other day. Maybe it will help. One of the little lies that I just realized is when Scientology claims that it's an applied religious philosophy. It doesn't require any belief. It only requires you to try it and apply it.

How many times have I heard that? How many times have I said that to others? Lots.

In reality it does require belief in the idea that the entire agonizing future of this planet, every man woman and child on it, depends upon what you do here and now with Scientology. And that it's a deadly serious game, and if we don't make it out this time, we might never have another chance again.

That requires belief. That's not a fact, it's not guaranteed to be true or false. It's just something you believe on faith. Let's compare that statement with something a great religious person said a long time ago "Whoever believes in me shall not perish, but have everlasting life". That's not a fact either. Same type of belief is required in both statements.

Some people accept the claim of "no belief required" without even thinking about it. Scientologists think "Scientology is the only hope for mankind" is a fact, not a belief. It's a belief, and I don't happen to believe it's true.

FFL

FFL, both of your posts on this thread are very good.

Another aspect of C of S is that they claim to follow certain beliefs such as "If its not true for you, it isn't true" When one gets involved in C of S he quickly finds out that what is followed is not that belief but, "If its true for LRH, its true for you" or the same maxim with DM replacing LRH. Actually, the original quote, which is from Buddha is not only not followed but if staff or public try to follow it and it conflicts with DM, that person will be expelled from the "Church".

Despite the fact that I had seen many instances of people trying to invoke that quote and then being raked over by C of S, I still continued to believe that the original quote was part of C of S doctrine.

Its kind of like a person's file folder in the Ethics section of the Org. Each person observes an out point between what the Church preaches and what they actually practice and they rationalize that it is okay on some sort of construct which they mock up but they do subconsciously make a mental note of the inconsistency and file it somewhere in their mind. When the file in ones mind starts to fill up (just as with the file folder in Ethics) the person begins to take action.

Depending on the SEVERITY of the inconsistencies which they notice and the VOLUME of the instances filed in their minds plus the type of personality the person has, the action the person takes could vary from filing a complaint inside the Org's structure to being willing to read negative information on the internet to going out and picketing the church or to routing out or just blowing. It takes time but when the person is upset enough to take a big first step, such as reading negative Scn sites on the internet, it usually ends up in the person leaving the organized C of S. Once they leave, they are faced with many forks in the road until they finally arrive at ESMB and gain a total grasp of the situation (Just a joke with a lot of truth in it).
lkwdblds

 

[Gadfly]

Another aspect of C of S is that they claim to follow certain beliefs such as "If its not true for you, it isn't true" When one gets involved in C of S he quickly finds out that what is followed is not that belief but, "If its true for LRH, its true for you" or the same maxim with DM replacing LRH. Actually, the original quote, which is from Buddha is not only not followed but if staff or public try to follow it and it conflicts with DM, that person will be expelled from the "Church".

I see that there are TWO very distinct aspects to the statement:

"What is true for you is what is true for you."

First, from the level of the Axioms and Factors. From the understanding that FIRST there is a thetan, and this invisible nothingness (static) POSTULATES things into existence to perceive and experience. Co-postulating is AGREEMENT, and agreement results in the perception and experience of REALITY. At this level, the statement means this:

What is true for you (as a self-created postulate, by fiat), is true for you (as a direct experience of a reality).

The two aspects of WHAT are true are different. Initially there is a self-proclaimed postulate (at the level of static), and there follows the experience and perception of whatever was postulated or agreed into existence.

There is a SECOND aspect to the statement:

"What is true for you is what is true for you."

This second aspect occurs at the level of thinking and experience of already existing things. This involves such things as "I think the Beatles are the best band ever", "I like lobster the best as a seafood", "I believe that RTC is preserving the LRH tech", "I believe that Scientology requires belief even though members claim that it doesn't".

In this context, it is sort of circular. I see it that way, so I SEE IT THAT WAY. It can be no other way really. On this level, of course, people can very much have things "be true" that aren't "true" at all. Somebody can believe and "experience" a rainy day when it is in fact (to everybody) else quite sunny. People can believe that Jesus is the savior of all people who accept Him as such. People can have it be true that 72 virgins await them once the devoted Muslim fanatic detonates the bomb tied around his chest in a bus full of schoolchildren. An innocent young girl can believe that her Prince Charming will come someday. A person can believe that the Earth is flat, or that two large tortoises hold the Earth up. THIS list could go on and on forever.

Also, the idea that "what is true for, is what is true for you" can be simply REDUNDANT. Duh! What else is new. "What is red is what is red". "What is meaningful is what is meaningful". "What is small is what is small". So what?

The point IS vital in relationship to the policy it exists in, Personal Integrity.

Actually, the above quote is an alteration of what Hubbard said:

WHAT IS TRUE FOR YOU is what you have observed yourself.
And when you lose that you have lost everything.
What is personal integrity?
Personal integrity is knowing what you know —
What you know is what you know —
And to have the courage to know and say what you have observed.

THAT is very much a sensible idea. Of course, as so many have recognized over time dealing with the Church, you are not allowed to observe, much less voice, anything that you KNOW that contradicts with the leadership, DM or existing Church party line views (and THESE change from week to week, and month to month). And if one stands up and displays courage - then he or she is OUT!!!!! (SP declare here I come)

Is there actually a quote where Hubbard says, "what is true for you is what is true for you"? I can swear I read it somewhere, or is it of the nature of Scientology folklore?

 

[Zinjifar]

"What is true for you is what is true for you."

This is merely a tautology. The actual Scientology statement is 'What is true is what's true for you', which is *not* a tautology; just mind-numbingly stupid. (and solipsist)

Zinj