For the record

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

It matters not a whit what either the Co$ or you consider to be a gain. What matters is what the individual considers to have gained from his efforts.

What you describe is an attempt to apply an external arbitrary consideration, either yours or hubbard's, to what is at heart a fully subjective process.


Mark A. Baker

Not if he is saying the gain was a result of a technical process and he is saying so to validate the legitamacy of the technology.

So "The precise application of the Tech gave me a gain, so that means the Tech works" is arguing in a circle.

The Tech works.
I got gains from the Tech
Therefore the Tech works.

Mark, you know that is an illogical and bullshit statement unless you can validate the legitamacy of the gain objectively.

And even then it doesn't necessitate the conclusion.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Isene]

Mark's got this one.

I will only add that I was there experiencing what I call remarkable gains. Others with pure opinions were not. Nuff said.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

In which case every human endeavor outside of the specifically physical sciences has absolutey nothing to say, and even the physical sciences are limited due to the inherently subjective nature of measurement.

Rather, your requirement is a false one, or as hubbard styled such an 'arbitrary'. All that actually needs to be demonstrated is a trending effect in subjective reports of gains being had from auditing or other aspects of scientology tech. Past histories of such trends are sufficient for that purpose.


Mark A. Baker

then I am saying his gains did not come from the auditing but because his shoes were tired to tight.

He is making the claim that the precise procedure produced a certain result.

So he has to objectively show the result.

If he can't, then he cannot logically argue that the result he claims came from the precise procedure.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Mark's got this one.

I will only add that I was there experiencing what I call remarkable gains. Others with pure opinions were not. Nuff said.

Bullshit!

Again with the total cop-out.

"Mark's got this one"

Bullshit!

And you know it.

A simple syllogism and it proves you wrong.

So you cop out of the conversation.

It's chicken-shit

And this is why I think you have not stopped being a Scientologist.

Actions speak louder than words.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Smilla]

Not if he is saying the gain was a result of a technical process and he is saying so to validate the legitamacy of the technology.

So "The precise application of the Tech gave me a gain, so that means the Tech works" is arguing in a circle.

The Tech works.
I got gains from the Tech
Therefore the Tech works.

Mark, you know that is an illogical and bullshit statement unless you can validate the legitamacy of the gain objectively.

And even then it doesn't necessitate the conclusion.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Thought terminating cliches.

"The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Reform_and_the_Psychology_of_Totalism

 

[Isene]

Wow. Chill, man.

As I said, I went from bad at communication to good. In between were communication exercises.

I am sure you will try a bait to make me waste some time argueing this with you, but I don't need to argue this point any further. You seem not interested in my experiences but rather to confirm your stance. That is OK.

If you are ready to explore new viewpoints, then we can happily explore new viewpoints together.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Wow. Chill, man.

As I said, I went from bad at communication to good. In between were communication exercises.

I am sure you will try a bait to make me waste some time argueing this with you, but I don't need to argue this point any further. You seem not interested in my experiences but rather to confirm your stance. That is OK.

If you are ready to explore new viewpoints, then we can happily explore new viewpoints together.

A knder, gentler, cop-ouy.

Your condescending requirement that I must agree with you for the conversation to continue, (that is what you meant by exploring new viewpoints isn't it?) is just a dodge from the simple fact that youdid not answer a simple question.

So I'll put this question more directly so you can understand it.

Do you see that if you are making the claim that a precise technology (a physical universe thing) produce a gain, then the gain must be somehow proven in order to validate and make the claim that the technology produce it?

Do you see that?

Can you explore that new viewpoint?

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[themadhair]

As I said, I went from bad at communication to good.

I think what he is asking is for some substantiation of that, or at least a description that would lay a foundation for this.

Let me use an example. Many people who attended the protests have gained substantially in their ability to communicate and articulate in the public arena. Protesters could claim to have a technology for communication or some shit like that – the question becomes would this claim in this scenario be more supported by evidence than the one you describe? The answer may very be yes.

I’m not making the above up regarding increased communication skills. By the 4th or so month of protesting the difference is clear to be seen. People who were once timid are now displaying massive amounts of confidence that were once lacking. When I compare this case to descriptions such as yours I do have to wonder. This is just a different tack of getting to what TAJ’s point is.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Thought terminating cliches.

"The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Reform_and_the_Psychology_of_Totalism

Thanks. I know.

The thought process I am up against is described in Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism as the propoganda for totalitarianism.

These guys just don't see it.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[TG1]

I agree with Mark and others that each person has the right to assign the terms gain or win or winning to any of their abilities or achievements. This right extends to both Geir and Charlie Sheen.

Others have the same right to observe and evaluate whether that person's really had a win/gain or not.

There's no experimental design that can control for individual changes in one's life or even one's own perception of those changes. Individuals can't get a do-over to add or subtract Scientology from their lives. There's no way to know whether an individual lost 20 pounds, won the lottery, got laid or found a parking place as a result of Scientology. Likewise, there's no way to know whether someone didn't die in a car crash, didn't have their identity stolen, didn't contract an STD, or missed the bus home as a result of Scientology.

Individual and group trends are useful in developing hypotheses. However, they're not conclusive. Yes, you can measure the attributes, behaviors and accomplishments of different groups (Scientologists, non-Scientologists, ex-Scientologists, etc.). However, members of these groups self-select into these treatments with no way to control for the non-randomness of the group membership. Obviously, pre-existing differences among the groups could invalidate the import of any group differences.

A little regression analysis on large samples might shed objective light on this debate -- using valid early childhood intelligence and achievement test results and personal histories of childhood, birth family, medical, employment, marital, sexual, criminal and other events. It would be so much fun to have access to that information and perform those analyses.

However, we're not going to resolve whether Geir had gains from Scientology that he wouldn't have gotten without Scientology. He knows himself better than anyone else here, and I'll take his word for it.

TG1

 

[Isene]

A knder, gentler, cop-ouy.

Your condescending requirement that I must agree with you for the conversation to continue, (that is what you meant by exploring new viewpoints isn't it?) is just a dodge from the simple fact that youdid not answer a simple question.

That was not at all what I meant.

I was inviting you to future discussions where we are both interested to explore new viewpoints rather than argue the ones we have. I don't need for you to agree with me on anything.

So I'll put this question more directly so you can understand it.

Do you see that if you are making the claim that a precise technology (a physical universe thing) produce a gain, then the gain must be somehow proven in order to validate and make the claim that the technology produce it?

No, it must not. Because I am not making any universal claim or any claim for others. I experienced what I experienced and I feel no need at all to back it up any further.

 

[Veda]

Wow. Chill, man.

As I said, I went from bad at communication to good. In between were communication exercises.

I am sure you will try a bait to make me waste some time argueing this with you, but I don't need to argue this point any further. You seem not interested in my experiences but rather to confirm your stance. That is OK.

If you are ready to explore new viewpoints, then we can happily explore new viewpoints together.

Some of us were involved with Scientology in an earlier era, and it's a little difficult to adjust to the idea that someone could make it to "OT 8" and have the "Comm Course EP" as a result, and think, "Good."

I mean, aren't you just a teeny bit disappointed?

 

[Mark A. Baker]

then I am saying his gains did not come from the auditing but because his shoes were tired to tight. ...

In the case of Geir, shoes aren't noted for having much of a direct effect on an individual's ability to communicate provided that he is not chewing on them at the time. On the other hand, addressing a person's communication inhibitions through a form of personal counselling and drilling basic elements of communication can prove remarkably beneficial at improving an individual's ability in that regard.

If it makes you happier, call it: a working hypothesis which is supported by all the available & relevant data and for which there is ample precedent in similar case histories as reported by others.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Isene]

Some of us were involved with Scientology in an earlier era, and it's a little difficult to adjust to the idea that someone could make it to "OT 8" and have the "Comm Course EP" as a result, and think, "Good."

I mean, aren't you just a teeny bit disappointed?

Nice bait

Someone started arguing about the one point regarding my communication training in Scientology, that's all.

 

[themadhair]

Some of us were involved with Scientology in an earlier era, and it's a little difficult to adjust to the idea that someone could make it to "OT 8" and have the "Comm Course EP" as a result, and think, "Good."

Seems to be a common occurrence where the recounted wins get smaller and smaller and smaller until the whole shebang is finally discarded…..

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I agree with Mark and others that each person has the right to assign the terms gain or win or winning to any of their abilities or achievements. This right extends to both Geir and Charlie Sheen.

Others have the same right to observe and evaluate whether that person's really had a win/gain or not.

There's no experimental design that can control for individual changes in one's life or even one's own perception of those changes. Individuals can't get a do-over to add or subtract Scientology from their lives. There's no way to know whether an individual lost 20 pounds, won the lottery, got laid or found a parking place as a result of Scientology. Likewise, there's no way to know whether someone didn't die in a car crash, didn't have their identity stolen, didn't contract an STD, or missed the bus home as a result of Scientology.

Individual and group trends are useful in developing hypotheses. However, they're not conclusive. Yes, you can measure the attributes, behaviors and accomplishments of different groups (Scientologists, non-Scientologists, ex-Scientologists, etc.). However, members of these groups self-select into these treatments with no way to control for the non-randomness of the group membership. Obviously, pre-existing differences among the groups could invalidate the import of any group differences.

A little regression analysis on large samples might shed objective light on this debate -- using valid early childhood intelligence and achievement test results and personal histories of childhood, birth family, medical, employment, marital, sexual, criminal and other events. It would be so much fun to have access to that information and perform those analyses.

However, we're not going to resolve whether Geir had gains from Scientology that he wouldn't have gotten without Scientology. He knows himself better than anyone else here, and I'll take his word for it.

TG1

But he is making the claim that he got his gains from Scientology.

He says his gains came from the application of exact procedures of Scientology.

First of all, I don't accept the idea of gains. but that is besides the point.

If he is going to say that the applications of precise procedures produced said result, then he has to show some evidence of the result and the connection to the procedure.

If not, then anyone can make the claim that the gains came because someone prayed for him or some such reason.

Could they not make that claim based on the same standard that he is using?

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

In the case of Geir, shoes aren't noted for having much of a direct effect on an individual's ability to communicate provided that he is not chewing on them at the time. On the other hand, addressing a person's communication inhibitions through a form of personal counselling and drilling basic elements of communication can prove remarkably beneficial at improving an individual's ability in that regard.

If it makes you happier, call it: a working hypothesis which is supported by all the available & relevant data and for which there is ample precedent in similar case histories as reported by others.


Mark A. Baker

Thank you, Mark.

At least this is an honest attempt to address the question using reason.

I think we can make progress.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[TG1]

But he is making the claim that he got his gains from Scientology.

He says his gains came from the application of exact procedures of Scientology.

First of all, I don't accept the idea of gains. but that is besides the point.

If he is going to say that the applications of precise procedures produced said result, then he has to show some evidence of the result and the connection to the procedure.

If not, then anyone can make the claim that the gains came because someone prayed for him or some such reason.

Could they not make that claim based on the same standard that he is using?

The Anabaptist Jacques

Yes, TAJ -- in this situation, anybody can claim any gains due to anything they wish to credit.

And nobody can prove or disprove anything.

It's not testable.

However, they can argue about it until the cows come home.

TG1

 

[themadhair]

If it makes you happier, call it: a working hypothesis which is supported by all the available & relevant data and for which there is ample precedent in similar case histories as reported by others.

This comment I think sums up a lot of what TAJ has a problem with.

Suppose I claim that my watch repels snakes. I’ve never encountered a snake, so clearly it is a working hypothesis which is supported by all the available & relevant data[/I] and for which there is ample precedent in similar case histories as reported by others who likewise have never encountered snakes when in the vicinity of my watch.

You’re practically having to flog the very language of hypothesis construction to even get so far as the label “working”, and the barring of anything objective of, you know, actual evidence is just part of the same (unintentional) game no?

At the most basic level take the general construction of the fundamental claim at issue here, namely “I did process X and got result Y”. Y has nothing resembling a metric or anything close, and that is part of the issue that is being challenged. But, an even greater sticking point, ‘process X’ could likely be replaced with ‘process Q, K, T or whatever’ and nothing in the fundamental claim would be different. At that point, due to the completely unrelated nature of X to Y in terms of evidence, the hypothesis just becomes meaningless.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Yes, TAJ -- in this situation, anybody can claim any gains due to anything they wish to credit.

And nobody can prove or disprove anything.

It's not testable.

TG1

Thank you. That is all I was trying to say.

So I think if Geir wants to be intellectually honest he will at least reserve his judgment when he makes such claims as the factual workability of the Tech.

The Anabaptist Jacques