David C Gibbons
Ex-Scientology Peon
CONSIDERING SCIENTOLOGY AND ITS ‘TECHNOLOGY’
L. Ron Hubbard used the words science and technology constantly in his writings promoting Dianetics and Scientology.
Hubbard was not a shy man. He had an answer for most everything, and wrote at great length on all kinds of topics. Of all of the religions I know of (I’ll stipulate that many may feel that Scientology is anything but a religion), I can’t think of any other founding figure that personally provided so much written and spoken materiel. One has to be impressed at the sheer volume of his writings and lectures. Unfortunately, quantity of production alone from a single person does not guarantee anything other than the person can write a lot.
I am going to consider the relationship of Science, Technology, and Scientology, with no consideration of the sheer volume of Hubbard's writings, and in light of his continued invocation of the words science and technology.
CONVENTIONAL PHYSICAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
In the usual way of science and technology today, successful and useful technology is based on the development of scientific principles. These principles are established through the process of research, discovery, hypothesizing, theorizing, proving the hypotheses or theory through valid scientific experiment, publication of detailed results, (Including actual data sets taken and exact criteria used in evaluating the data). The above work is then validated through peer review, and replication of results by other disinterested researchers who attempt to confirm the hypothesis or results (This is to ensure that errors, fraud, mistakes, faulty test methods, data errors, general screw-ups and whatever else are eliminated.)
As a scientific advance is proven through the above process, others extend and refine the work through further iterations of the above process, either refining or even replacing the original hypothesis or theory as more is learned and observed.
Further, as the science is applied to real world challenges such as building bridges and making airplanes, data is gathered that feeds back to improve the scientific understanding of the phenomena in question.
In the physical sciences, and the technologies that depend upon them, this process has taken us to the moon, to the bottom of the seas, connected mankind globally via jets and the internet, and brought us daytime soap operas on TV in living color. (OK, that last may not be modern science and technology’s crowning achievement.)
CONVENTIONAL SOCIAL / BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE
A researcher can test a bar of metal to destruction, learning a lot about the metal in the process. With a few notable exceptions, researchers into human physical and mental health have had to observe ethical guidelines in experimenting on people. Testing people to destruction is frowned upon in civilized places.
In addition, any scientific endeavor that depends on people’s perceptions has to be very carefully evaluated to try to account for the fact that people can behave or react in ways that will make the results of experiments involving them very unreliable. Hubbard never indicated that any steps were taken to gather data in a way that would separate out the various factors that could obscure the actual efficacy of Scientology 'technology'.
In fact, the common means of evaluation of results provided on a day-to-day basis in Scientology seems designed to include individual bias, rather than reveal objective results.
People receiving Scientology counseling pay very high prices. This can discourage people from expressing doubts or reservations about the results of the counseling. The ‘intelligence test’ contents given after a course of counseling change little as the person gets more counseling later, and simply remembering the questions from previous times the test was taken could account for 'improving' test results. (It was that way for me, and I'm sure I wasn't unusual.) People receiving Scientology counseling are asked to publicly share their experience with other Scientologists, and that can prompt them to present their experiences in a more positive light.
SCIENTOLOGY AND CONVENTIONAL SCIENCE
L Ron Hubbard appeared to have skipped or suppressed many of the normal steps used the pursuit of conventional science. Most particularly he had strenuously suppressed the review of his work by others. This was true even if the reviewers were people who did not benefit from the proving or disproving of the ideas contained in his work. (See his Policy Letter “Keeping Scientology Working”) Beyond that, the extension of whatever ‘science’ there was in Scientology by others was strictly forbidden.
L. Ron Hubbard made much use of the word 'Technology'.
Again, from Wikipedia:
"The word "technology" can also be used to refer to a collection of techniques. In this context, it is the current state of humanity's knowledge of how to combine resources to produce desired products, to solve problems, fulfill needs, or satisfy wants; it includes technical methods, skills, processes, techniques, tools and raw materials. When combined with another term, such as "medical technology" or "space technology", it refers to the state of the respective field's knowledge and tools."
Certainly this definition of the word technology can describe the huge collection of methods, processes and techniques Hubbard developed during his lifetime. There is, however, an implication to Hubbard's choice of that word. It suggests that Scientology enjoys the same level of reliability and effectiveness as other technologies that the general populace is familiar with.
In Hubbard's "Keeping Scientology Working" document, his technology is 'correct'. It was not to be altered, interpreted, or blended with any other systems of dealing with mental or spiritual issues. Scientology practitioners are not allowed to compare or contrast Scientology to any other systems. Instead, Hubbard himself provided all criticisms and comparisons to all other mental and and spiritual systems. (Which were, unsurprisingly, found by him to be inferior to Scientology technology, even if well-intentioned.) Scientologists are not allowed to examine any outside criticisms of Scientology technology, as Hubbard declared all such criticisms as being motivated solely by evil people's intention to destroy man's 'only chance at freedom'.
ANTI-SCIENCE
All of the above brings me to the conclusion that Scientology has nothing to do with true science. Further, this immediately suggests that the way Hubbard presented and protected his 'technology' was motivated by intentions other than those typically associated with scientific endeavor.
L. Ron Hubbard demanded complete personal control of his technology. Today, even with Hubbard long dead, the copyright laws are used to prevent the 'technology' from being used outside of settings completely controlled by the Church of Scientology.
For a set of practices supposedly developed for the betterment of all mankind, and based on 'scientific principles', this is very odd.
ACTUAL RESULTS
Setting aside the many broad claims made by L. Ron Hubbard and his successors, what can one observe about the Scientologists who enjoy the benefits of the application of Scientology technology?
Reading the contents of the ESMB message board, an impression is formed of a group of people who struggled under huge burdens, both financial and personal.
Normal human activities such as having families, engaging in social activities outside of the narrow group of other believers, participating in general recreational activities, and establishing financial security for themselves and their families are stunted or absent.
The ordinary dedicated Scientologist struggles to do much beyond trying to meet the ongoing demands of the Church of Scientology for his or her time and money.
The ordinary Scientologist struggles to deal with a church whose culture is characterized by a distinct lack of common decency. He or she has to deal with an organization noted for its rapacity, mendacity, and disregard for the well-being of the people involved.
Individual Scientologists (As documented here and elsewhere) can and do engage in criminal activities, go insane, sicken and die, lose faith in Scientology, and participate in abusing other Scientologists physically and psychologically. Individual Scientologists leave the church, and loudly question the validity of the entire edifice that Hubbard built, and that his successors continue.
Hubbard's answer to the many documented failures in and around Scientology and its technology was that people either weren't applying it correctly, or that the people were plain evil. Any of the problems and bad things that happened in and around Scientology were thus not the responsibility of Scientology, Hubbard, or his technology.
THE BRIDGE TO TOTAL IRRESPONSIBILITY
The apparent outcome from my perspective is one we've seen before in too many other religious groups. A cult was created and designed to defend itself against all perceived enemies. In the case of Scientology, we see a culture where (among many other things) NO responsibility is taken by the Church and its agents for bad things that happen. In the rare case where church agents are caught red-handed in criminal activities (See "Guardian's Office") the Church quickly severs all ties to the convicted individuals and evades as much of the consequences as possible.
When a real bridge collapses, engineering studies are done, and the root cause of the failure is hopefully identified. Improvements to the technology of bridge-making results. Sometimes powerful interests can block such efforts to figure out what actually went wrong, but usually the effort is made.
In Scientology, when things really go wrong, the technology cannot be questioned. No-one tries to figure out where the technology itself failed. They cannot, for the technology is 'correct', perfect, and cannot be investigated in any normal fashion.
MONEY, AND CHANGES TO SCIENTOLOGY TECHNOLOGY
There is one curious element to this story. Scientology technology CAN be found to be incorrect, in certain special circumstances.
In the first circumstance, L Ron Hubbard kept changing the 'technology', particularly in the 1950's and 1960's. Even though the changes were apparently attempts to improve his methods and the 'workability' thereof, Scientologists are told that ANY method or technique developed by L. Ron Hubbard is valid. This is sort of like saying that primitive methods of farming are as good as modern methods. (Gentle reader, please leave aside issues about the undesirable side effects of some modern farming methods)
In the second circumstance, 'alterations' to L. Ron Hubbard's technology are discovered. Hubbard texts that had been in publication for decades during Hubbard's life are found to have been altered by others. Expensive 'corrected' versions then must be purchased by the faithful, and the old texts destroyed. Expensive new or re-done courses of study are issued, to correct failures in the design of previous courses, again due to 'alterations'.
The rank and file Scientologists end up being responsible to find the money and time to buy and do the 'corrected' materials and courses. The Church has apparently fulfilled its responsibility simply by detecting the alterations and generously offering the corrected material to the faithful. For a price…
(Imagine the family bible costing $10,000, and you can't copy any of it. Periodically it is discovered to be incorrect, and you have to buy a new one to be considered faithful.)
RESTORING THE SCIENCE TO SCIENTOLOGY
After taking you through all of the above, what else can I say?
First of all, is Scientology technology complete hokum? This question cannot be answered seriously without a complete re-examination of the entire edifice by people who have no interest in protecting Scientology or its technology. This includes the people who make money from it, or the people who have large personal or monetary investments in it.
By design, such an examination is anathema to the Church, and it constantly has attacked any who make such attempts. In this situation, honest inquiry is probably impossible.
I suspect the Church will have to be completely destroyed as a legal entity, and copyright protection stripped from all of Hubbard's work before valid evaluation could be done.
Second, in fields of serious and honest scientific endeavor, no-one owns the truth. In Scientology, only L. Ron Hubbard could develop truth. Only he could devise the means for man's freedom. Coincidentally, only he and his successors own that truth, and heaven (and a lot of lawyers and money) help anyone who dares poach upon that ownership.
WHY BOTHER?
The range of opinion about the validity of L. Ron Hubbard's technology seen in the "Ex-Scientologist Message Board" (ESMB) covers a lot of territory. Many feel 'gigantic fraud' or 'vicious brainwashing program' sums it all up. Others feel there is a portion of Hubbard's earlier work that still has value. Some still feel that Hubbard's technology is all wonderful, and it is only the way the Church is managed that is the problem.
Given the strong negative opinions of many experienced ex-Scientologists on this and
other online forums with long experience with the highest levels of Hubbard's technology, why would anyone want to rummage through the great heap of his work looking for scientifically valid ideas?
WHAT I THINK ABOUT SCEINTOLOGY TECHNOLOGY (AND L. RON HUBBARD)
L. Ron Hubbard was a charlatan. He was also an inveterate scribbler. He created a self-help system from impure motives, with strong elements of his own self-aggrandizement and self-enrichment. He appropriated ideas from near and far, taking credit for much of those ideas, particularly later in his career.
He built a culture around himself that was a reflection of his character, as is always the case of any founder/leader, great or small. That culture is itself an indictment of Hubbard's character. Worse yet, the culture allowed Hubbard to act unchecked by norms of common decency, as he himself had excluded them in his creation of Scientology Justice, and in the day-to-day actions he and his followers took against any they perceived as enemies, or inconveniences.
The espoused philosophy of Scientology is high-minded, but the actual practices of the organization of the Church brutalize people, and rob them of their dignity and self-determinism. Ironically, this is in direct contradiction of the goals L. Ron Hubbard laid out for Scientology.
The technology of Scientology only has validity in the eyes of the believers, which is an indictment of that technology. Any valid technology stands on its own merits, not on belief.
The design of Scientology technology actually seems to me to be a carefully considered scheme of metering out pleasurable moments experienced by the person getting counseling or other Scientology services, with the intention of getting the person to then disgorge more money for the next pleasurable experience.
Mind you, I gave lots of money and time to the Church, for little benefit, so my opinions are a bit biased.
THE 'E-METER'
To me, one part of Scientology worth investigating scientifically at this time is Volney Mathison's 'E-meter'. I've used Hubbard's version of this instrument, and I have observed its ability to register a person's reaction to thought. Note that I say 'reaction'. This is an important distinction, and one that has to be kept in mind then examining the instrument.
People familiar with the operation of the 'E-meter' can spoof results given by the instrument. A therapist can ask "What have you done to Scientology?", and a person familiar with the instrument can put their attention on a time they were really happy and so prevent "bad thoughts" from registering on the meter.
Hubbard's representations of what this instrument can and cannot do need to be set aside, and a fresh look needs to be taken at it. It MAY be a tool that can be added to the toolkit of sincere therapists, if a proper scientific understanding of the instrument and it's action can be developed. Once that understanding is established, THEN a set of counseling techniques based on that understanding could be developed.
Please note that existing modern computer-based instruments inspired by the E-meter can make the E-meter's function (whatever that may be) much more accessible and reliable. Dispensing with the hand-held 'cans' and going to more reliable things like conductive wrist straps or even inexpensive electrocardiography electrodes could also make the instrument much more reliable. 'Reliable for what' is the real question, of course. How is a tool actually used?
HOW TO POISON THERAPY - SCIENTOLOGY STYLE
Whether one is using an 'E-meter' or not, Scientology therapeutic sessions are unfortunately colored by the abusive culture of the church. I received Scientology counseling after I had obtained money for that counseling in ways I was ashamed of. Faithful Scientologists go into horrific debt, mortgaging their futures to pay for counseling. How does that affect the quality and effectiveness of the therapy? Ironically, Hubbard technology warns against getting therapy when one is worried about 'present-time problems'. The Church blithely saddles its parishioners with such problems in its frantic quest for parishioner dollars.
This demonstrates one example of the Church's actual respect for its own 'technology'.
I believe we should accord that 'technology' the same respect, but for the various reasons I list in this short essay.
Beware Scientology and its technology.
David C Gibbons, ex-Scientologist
L. Ron Hubbard used the words science and technology constantly in his writings promoting Dianetics and Scientology.
Hubbard was not a shy man. He had an answer for most everything, and wrote at great length on all kinds of topics. Of all of the religions I know of (I’ll stipulate that many may feel that Scientology is anything but a religion), I can’t think of any other founding figure that personally provided so much written and spoken materiel. One has to be impressed at the sheer volume of his writings and lectures. Unfortunately, quantity of production alone from a single person does not guarantee anything other than the person can write a lot.
I am going to consider the relationship of Science, Technology, and Scientology, with no consideration of the sheer volume of Hubbard's writings, and in light of his continued invocation of the words science and technology.
CONVENTIONAL PHYSICAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
In the usual way of science and technology today, successful and useful technology is based on the development of scientific principles. These principles are established through the process of research, discovery, hypothesizing, theorizing, proving the hypotheses or theory through valid scientific experiment, publication of detailed results, (Including actual data sets taken and exact criteria used in evaluating the data). The above work is then validated through peer review, and replication of results by other disinterested researchers who attempt to confirm the hypothesis or results (This is to ensure that errors, fraud, mistakes, faulty test methods, data errors, general screw-ups and whatever else are eliminated.)
As a scientific advance is proven through the above process, others extend and refine the work through further iterations of the above process, either refining or even replacing the original hypothesis or theory as more is learned and observed.
Further, as the science is applied to real world challenges such as building bridges and making airplanes, data is gathered that feeds back to improve the scientific understanding of the phenomena in question.
In the physical sciences, and the technologies that depend upon them, this process has taken us to the moon, to the bottom of the seas, connected mankind globally via jets and the internet, and brought us daytime soap operas on TV in living color. (OK, that last may not be modern science and technology’s crowning achievement.)
CONVENTIONAL SOCIAL / BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE
A researcher can test a bar of metal to destruction, learning a lot about the metal in the process. With a few notable exceptions, researchers into human physical and mental health have had to observe ethical guidelines in experimenting on people. Testing people to destruction is frowned upon in civilized places.
In addition, any scientific endeavor that depends on people’s perceptions has to be very carefully evaluated to try to account for the fact that people can behave or react in ways that will make the results of experiments involving them very unreliable. Hubbard never indicated that any steps were taken to gather data in a way that would separate out the various factors that could obscure the actual efficacy of Scientology 'technology'.
In fact, the common means of evaluation of results provided on a day-to-day basis in Scientology seems designed to include individual bias, rather than reveal objective results.
People receiving Scientology counseling pay very high prices. This can discourage people from expressing doubts or reservations about the results of the counseling. The ‘intelligence test’ contents given after a course of counseling change little as the person gets more counseling later, and simply remembering the questions from previous times the test was taken could account for 'improving' test results. (It was that way for me, and I'm sure I wasn't unusual.) People receiving Scientology counseling are asked to publicly share their experience with other Scientologists, and that can prompt them to present their experiences in a more positive light.
SCIENTOLOGY AND CONVENTIONAL SCIENCE
L Ron Hubbard appeared to have skipped or suppressed many of the normal steps used the pursuit of conventional science. Most particularly he had strenuously suppressed the review of his work by others. This was true even if the reviewers were people who did not benefit from the proving or disproving of the ideas contained in his work. (See his Policy Letter “Keeping Scientology Working”) Beyond that, the extension of whatever ‘science’ there was in Scientology by others was strictly forbidden.
L. Ron Hubbard made much use of the word 'Technology'.
Again, from Wikipedia:
"The word "technology" can also be used to refer to a collection of techniques. In this context, it is the current state of humanity's knowledge of how to combine resources to produce desired products, to solve problems, fulfill needs, or satisfy wants; it includes technical methods, skills, processes, techniques, tools and raw materials. When combined with another term, such as "medical technology" or "space technology", it refers to the state of the respective field's knowledge and tools."
Certainly this definition of the word technology can describe the huge collection of methods, processes and techniques Hubbard developed during his lifetime. There is, however, an implication to Hubbard's choice of that word. It suggests that Scientology enjoys the same level of reliability and effectiveness as other technologies that the general populace is familiar with.
In Hubbard's "Keeping Scientology Working" document, his technology is 'correct'. It was not to be altered, interpreted, or blended with any other systems of dealing with mental or spiritual issues. Scientology practitioners are not allowed to compare or contrast Scientology to any other systems. Instead, Hubbard himself provided all criticisms and comparisons to all other mental and and spiritual systems. (Which were, unsurprisingly, found by him to be inferior to Scientology technology, even if well-intentioned.) Scientologists are not allowed to examine any outside criticisms of Scientology technology, as Hubbard declared all such criticisms as being motivated solely by evil people's intention to destroy man's 'only chance at freedom'.
ANTI-SCIENCE
All of the above brings me to the conclusion that Scientology has nothing to do with true science. Further, this immediately suggests that the way Hubbard presented and protected his 'technology' was motivated by intentions other than those typically associated with scientific endeavor.
L. Ron Hubbard demanded complete personal control of his technology. Today, even with Hubbard long dead, the copyright laws are used to prevent the 'technology' from being used outside of settings completely controlled by the Church of Scientology.
For a set of practices supposedly developed for the betterment of all mankind, and based on 'scientific principles', this is very odd.
ACTUAL RESULTS
Setting aside the many broad claims made by L. Ron Hubbard and his successors, what can one observe about the Scientologists who enjoy the benefits of the application of Scientology technology?
Reading the contents of the ESMB message board, an impression is formed of a group of people who struggled under huge burdens, both financial and personal.
Normal human activities such as having families, engaging in social activities outside of the narrow group of other believers, participating in general recreational activities, and establishing financial security for themselves and their families are stunted or absent.
The ordinary dedicated Scientologist struggles to do much beyond trying to meet the ongoing demands of the Church of Scientology for his or her time and money.
The ordinary Scientologist struggles to deal with a church whose culture is characterized by a distinct lack of common decency. He or she has to deal with an organization noted for its rapacity, mendacity, and disregard for the well-being of the people involved.
Individual Scientologists (As documented here and elsewhere) can and do engage in criminal activities, go insane, sicken and die, lose faith in Scientology, and participate in abusing other Scientologists physically and psychologically. Individual Scientologists leave the church, and loudly question the validity of the entire edifice that Hubbard built, and that his successors continue.
Hubbard's answer to the many documented failures in and around Scientology and its technology was that people either weren't applying it correctly, or that the people were plain evil. Any of the problems and bad things that happened in and around Scientology were thus not the responsibility of Scientology, Hubbard, or his technology.
THE BRIDGE TO TOTAL IRRESPONSIBILITY
The apparent outcome from my perspective is one we've seen before in too many other religious groups. A cult was created and designed to defend itself against all perceived enemies. In the case of Scientology, we see a culture where (among many other things) NO responsibility is taken by the Church and its agents for bad things that happen. In the rare case where church agents are caught red-handed in criminal activities (See "Guardian's Office") the Church quickly severs all ties to the convicted individuals and evades as much of the consequences as possible.
When a real bridge collapses, engineering studies are done, and the root cause of the failure is hopefully identified. Improvements to the technology of bridge-making results. Sometimes powerful interests can block such efforts to figure out what actually went wrong, but usually the effort is made.
In Scientology, when things really go wrong, the technology cannot be questioned. No-one tries to figure out where the technology itself failed. They cannot, for the technology is 'correct', perfect, and cannot be investigated in any normal fashion.
MONEY, AND CHANGES TO SCIENTOLOGY TECHNOLOGY
There is one curious element to this story. Scientology technology CAN be found to be incorrect, in certain special circumstances.
In the first circumstance, L Ron Hubbard kept changing the 'technology', particularly in the 1950's and 1960's. Even though the changes were apparently attempts to improve his methods and the 'workability' thereof, Scientologists are told that ANY method or technique developed by L. Ron Hubbard is valid. This is sort of like saying that primitive methods of farming are as good as modern methods. (Gentle reader, please leave aside issues about the undesirable side effects of some modern farming methods)
In the second circumstance, 'alterations' to L. Ron Hubbard's technology are discovered. Hubbard texts that had been in publication for decades during Hubbard's life are found to have been altered by others. Expensive 'corrected' versions then must be purchased by the faithful, and the old texts destroyed. Expensive new or re-done courses of study are issued, to correct failures in the design of previous courses, again due to 'alterations'.
The rank and file Scientologists end up being responsible to find the money and time to buy and do the 'corrected' materials and courses. The Church has apparently fulfilled its responsibility simply by detecting the alterations and generously offering the corrected material to the faithful. For a price…
(Imagine the family bible costing $10,000, and you can't copy any of it. Periodically it is discovered to be incorrect, and you have to buy a new one to be considered faithful.)
RESTORING THE SCIENCE TO SCIENTOLOGY
After taking you through all of the above, what else can I say?
First of all, is Scientology technology complete hokum? This question cannot be answered seriously without a complete re-examination of the entire edifice by people who have no interest in protecting Scientology or its technology. This includes the people who make money from it, or the people who have large personal or monetary investments in it.
By design, such an examination is anathema to the Church, and it constantly has attacked any who make such attempts. In this situation, honest inquiry is probably impossible.
I suspect the Church will have to be completely destroyed as a legal entity, and copyright protection stripped from all of Hubbard's work before valid evaluation could be done.
Second, in fields of serious and honest scientific endeavor, no-one owns the truth. In Scientology, only L. Ron Hubbard could develop truth. Only he could devise the means for man's freedom. Coincidentally, only he and his successors own that truth, and heaven (and a lot of lawyers and money) help anyone who dares poach upon that ownership.
WHY BOTHER?
The range of opinion about the validity of L. Ron Hubbard's technology seen in the "Ex-Scientologist Message Board" (ESMB) covers a lot of territory. Many feel 'gigantic fraud' or 'vicious brainwashing program' sums it all up. Others feel there is a portion of Hubbard's earlier work that still has value. Some still feel that Hubbard's technology is all wonderful, and it is only the way the Church is managed that is the problem.
Given the strong negative opinions of many experienced ex-Scientologists on this and
other online forums with long experience with the highest levels of Hubbard's technology, why would anyone want to rummage through the great heap of his work looking for scientifically valid ideas?
WHAT I THINK ABOUT SCEINTOLOGY TECHNOLOGY (AND L. RON HUBBARD)
L. Ron Hubbard was a charlatan. He was also an inveterate scribbler. He created a self-help system from impure motives, with strong elements of his own self-aggrandizement and self-enrichment. He appropriated ideas from near and far, taking credit for much of those ideas, particularly later in his career.
He built a culture around himself that was a reflection of his character, as is always the case of any founder/leader, great or small. That culture is itself an indictment of Hubbard's character. Worse yet, the culture allowed Hubbard to act unchecked by norms of common decency, as he himself had excluded them in his creation of Scientology Justice, and in the day-to-day actions he and his followers took against any they perceived as enemies, or inconveniences.
The espoused philosophy of Scientology is high-minded, but the actual practices of the organization of the Church brutalize people, and rob them of their dignity and self-determinism. Ironically, this is in direct contradiction of the goals L. Ron Hubbard laid out for Scientology.
The technology of Scientology only has validity in the eyes of the believers, which is an indictment of that technology. Any valid technology stands on its own merits, not on belief.
The design of Scientology technology actually seems to me to be a carefully considered scheme of metering out pleasurable moments experienced by the person getting counseling or other Scientology services, with the intention of getting the person to then disgorge more money for the next pleasurable experience.
Mind you, I gave lots of money and time to the Church, for little benefit, so my opinions are a bit biased.
THE 'E-METER'
To me, one part of Scientology worth investigating scientifically at this time is Volney Mathison's 'E-meter'. I've used Hubbard's version of this instrument, and I have observed its ability to register a person's reaction to thought. Note that I say 'reaction'. This is an important distinction, and one that has to be kept in mind then examining the instrument.
People familiar with the operation of the 'E-meter' can spoof results given by the instrument. A therapist can ask "What have you done to Scientology?", and a person familiar with the instrument can put their attention on a time they were really happy and so prevent "bad thoughts" from registering on the meter.
Hubbard's representations of what this instrument can and cannot do need to be set aside, and a fresh look needs to be taken at it. It MAY be a tool that can be added to the toolkit of sincere therapists, if a proper scientific understanding of the instrument and it's action can be developed. Once that understanding is established, THEN a set of counseling techniques based on that understanding could be developed.
Please note that existing modern computer-based instruments inspired by the E-meter can make the E-meter's function (whatever that may be) much more accessible and reliable. Dispensing with the hand-held 'cans' and going to more reliable things like conductive wrist straps or even inexpensive electrocardiography electrodes could also make the instrument much more reliable. 'Reliable for what' is the real question, of course. How is a tool actually used?
HOW TO POISON THERAPY - SCIENTOLOGY STYLE
Whether one is using an 'E-meter' or not, Scientology therapeutic sessions are unfortunately colored by the abusive culture of the church. I received Scientology counseling after I had obtained money for that counseling in ways I was ashamed of. Faithful Scientologists go into horrific debt, mortgaging their futures to pay for counseling. How does that affect the quality and effectiveness of the therapy? Ironically, Hubbard technology warns against getting therapy when one is worried about 'present-time problems'. The Church blithely saddles its parishioners with such problems in its frantic quest for parishioner dollars.
This demonstrates one example of the Church's actual respect for its own 'technology'.
I believe we should accord that 'technology' the same respect, but for the various reasons I list in this short essay.
Beware Scientology and its technology.
David C Gibbons, ex-Scientologist
I use Rub & Yawn to determine if an item is charged in the first place, or still charged, and if it isn't I dump it pretty quickly. I don't do CC/OT2. If I want to address polarities I use something like Dipoles (
