Fundamentalist KSW IS blog: What is RIGHT with Scientology

[SpecialFrog]

Oh I fully acknowledged it can seem that way. I've known several people who claim to have gained personally from prayer. Some quite closely. I've known several hundred, myself included, who have gained from scientology. The claims made on behalf of prayer do not typically align well with the benefits known to be had from auditing.

People attribute positive developments to things they believe in. Scientology actively encourages this, getting people to write success stories, focus on "wins" rather than the supposed EP of whatever they are running, etc. It is almost as if it were deliberately engineered to exploit this well-established human tendency.

This doesn't mean that there is no causal relationship between Scientology auditing and the results but it does mean that all the positive anecdotes in the world are not all that compelling, particularly since they tend to be generic rather than specific to what Scientology delivers.

 

[TG1]

^^^^^ Beautifully stated, Frog.

TG1

 

[Terril park]

Might I ask why you were booted?




Actually I'm amused that you would even consider asking given my oft stated views on hubbard's use of "stats". I personally quite like and respect the quietly getting on with it approach.

For the record, my response is "no".


Mark A. Baker

Pat Krenik asked for her IFA listing to mention she delivered NOTs and Solo Nots.
The then E/O or qual sec replied that she had to do lowers. It seems the problem was that she hadn't done the courses in CO$. I checked that at the time IFA did not do them or know where they could be done.

I then wrote to all the "execs" on their forum castigating then for insulting
one who delivered more upper levels than anyone else in the US FZ.

At that time the person who asked for lowers was working a few blocks away
from Pat and trying to steal her clients.


So you don't want to collect stats. So why the fuck are you giving me insults
for not 100% doing so!!!

Idiot!!!

 

[Lone Star]

People attribute positive developments to things they believe in. Scientology actively encourages this, getting people to write success stories, focus on "wins" rather than the supposed EP of whatever they are running, etc. It is almost as if it were engineered to deliberately engineered to exploit this well-established human tendency.

This doesn't mean that there is no causal relationship between Scientology auditing and the results but it does mean that all the positive anecdotes in the world are not all that compelling, particularly since they tend to be generic rather than specific to what Scientology delivers.

And that's why we should all be thankful that science doesn't rely on anecdotal evidence. Scientists, real scientists, really and truly know how to know. Proof or GTFO is their MO. Although they don't phrase it that way.

It's too bad Hubbard went the cult route rather than the scientific route. But since he flunked and dropped out of college I guess he didn't know how to do real studies. The cult route was more lucrative of course.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... At that time the person who asked for lowers was working a few blocks away from Pat and trying to steal her clients. ...

Roy Selby? I wouldn't be at all surprised, and not that you should have been.

... So you don't want to collect stats. So why the fuck are you giving me insults
for not 100% doing so!!! Idiot!!!

I didn't. My differences with you have nothing to do with your love of "stat reports".


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... This doesn't mean that there is no causal relationship between Scientology auditing and the results but it does mean that all the positive anecdotes in the world are not all that compelling, particularly since they tend to be generic rather than specific to what Scientology delivers.

That is quite true. It is one of the reasons I don't hold with "success stories". Nonetheless, personal experiences and anecdotes are often quite compelling to the person whose experience they reflect.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Abletu]

Keeping Scientology Working is a fantastic idea.

You can't give away what you don't have!

You can only give away "communicate" what you have.

Quoting L. Ron Hubbard is only Ron's definition of scientology, you claim him to be right, are you right?

The time track exists, you package how you want to view that track, how you respond to that information. Ron claims you created your time track while disconnected (unconscious) really?

PTS-ness indicates failure to understand space-ation, my space, your space, other-motivated, reactive-motivated.

Connected to a reactive ally is PTS-ness. Clear has no reactive allies.

It just takes a little hubbardism "Hubbard Authority Facts" to poison the whole.

Keeping Scientology working is great, I work at keeping scientology working everyday.

I don't mix other practices with scientology, I learn from other successful practices what makes them successful.

Hubbard's Scientology as written is not successful. Yet the majority of facts screams it should be the only leader in all of the humanities without exception.

Its not and Ron has used the justification SPs and PTSness as the reason it isn't.

Ron has not kept scientology working.

 

[degraded being]

Meh! Bakes' "obvious discourtesy" is another person's perfectly reasonable response. Its still a WIN practise because assertions without basis will continue to be highlighted, as will those people who persist in making them and failing to deliver when called.

Plus...."Obvious discourtesy" Sounds so Haughty Queen. Not that there's anything wrong with that! Some of my best friends......

 

[SpecialFrog]

That is quite true. It is one of the reasons I don't hold with "success stories". Nonetheless, personal experiences and anecdotes are often quite compelling to the person whose experience they reflect.

The fact that people do find their own experiences to be conclusive even when they are not is exactly my point.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

The fact that people do find their own experiences to be conclusive even when they are not is exactly my point.

What primarily matters in a person's life is that which he experiences for himself and not what someone else strives to prove conclusively.

And that is mine.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Bill]

The claims made on behalf of prayer do not typically align well with the benefits known to be had from auditing.

Mark A. Baker

Question: What are the "benefits known to be had from auditing" exactly? How do they differ from benefits claimed for prayer?

Bill

 

[Osiris]

To me the whole auditing experience is to make you feel good ....

& they get you to sign your signature, & write success stories (as evidence), at the time,

because they know the feeling will wear off ......

they also "co-incidentally" want you to buy as many services as you can, while you are in the "feel good state"...... hmmmmmm

..... because tomorrow may be too late .....

 

[Gib]

And that's why we should all be thankful that science doesn't rely on anecdotal evidence. Scientists, real scientists, really and truly know how to know. Proof or GTFO is their MO. Although they don't phrase it that way.

It's too bad Hubbard went the cult route rather than the scientific route. But since he flunked and dropped out of college I guess he didn't know how to do real studies. The cult route was more lucrative of course.

From my research, he did attempt to do this. He went to the authority's on the subject at the time in 1950 or earlier, but they rejected his findings. And from what I can figure he tried again, got bad press, then lectured how bad the authorities are and stupid they are. He turned it up to be right. And set out to be right. And he thus PR'd how bad the press is, how bad the psych's are, etc.

Back in the 1960's 1950's there were no CULTS per se. It's not like there was book of How To Start A Religion or How to Start A Cult, if you know what I mean.

 

[Infinite]

That is quite true. It is one of the reasons I don't hold with "success stories". Nonetheless, personal experiences and anecdotes are often quite compelling to the person whose experience they reflect.

"Personal experiences and anecdotes" are not "success stories".

 

[Gib]

Question: What are the "benefits known to be had from auditing" exactly? How do they differ from benefits claimed for prayer?

Bill

Well Bill,

good question. That is the problem asking a scientologist and anybody involved in scientology at one point in time.

You see, per the policy letter KSW, and PTS/SP policy, when one gets involved with sientology, why they are no longer allowed to mix practices,

or compare which practice gets better results or benefits.

Isn't that something?

 

[Infinite]

From my research, he did attempt to do this. He went to the authority's on the subject at the time in 1950 or earlier, but they rejected his findings. And from what I can figure he tried again, got bad press, then lectured how bad the authorities are and stupid they are. He turned it up to be right. And set out to be right. And he thus PR'd how bad the press is, how bad the psych's are, etc.

Back in the 1960's 1950's there were no CULTS per se. It's not like there was book of How To Start A Religion or How to Start A Cult, if you know what I mean.

Ahh . . . interesting. Got DOX on L Ron Hubbard's attempts to verify his findings scientifically prior to 1950? And, yes, he did try the scientific route, at least twice later in the 1950s.

. . . The MEDLINE database records two independent scientific studies on Dianetics, both conducted in the 1950s under the auspices of New York University. Harvey Jay Fischer tested Dianetics therapy against three claims made by proponents and found it does not effect any significant changes in intellectual functioning, mathematical ability, or the degree of personality conflicts; Jack Fox tested Hubbard's thesis regarding recall of engrams, with the assistance of the Dianetic Research Foundation, and could not substantiate it . . .

. . . the findings of those two studies still stand today because in the 50-odd years since, there has not been a skerrick of data presented to refute them.

 

[Gib]

Ahh . . . interesting. Got DOX on L Ron Hubbard's attempts to verify his findings scientifically prior to 1950? And, yes, he did try the scientific route, at least twice later in the 1950s.



. . . the findings of those two studies still stand today because in the 50-odd years since, there has not been a skerrick of data presented to refute them.

No I ain't got no specific dox's. Only my memory of what I have read in others stories about scientology and listening to all the lectures given by hubbard.

But that is the question, why no DOX even by hubbard since he said it was a Science per DMSMH. So why he no DOX? Other than his Affirmations per Gerry Armstrong.

 

[Ogsonofgroo]

From my research, he did attempt to do this. He went to the authority's on the subject at the time in 1950 or earlier, but they rejected his findings. And from what I can figure he tried again, got bad press, then lectured how bad the authorities are and stupid they are. He turned it up to be right. And set out to be right. And he thus PR'd how bad the press is, how bad the psych's are, etc.

Back in the 1960's 1950's there were no CULTS per se. It's not like there was book of How To Start A Religion or How to Start A Cult, if you know what I mean.

Actually dear Gib, there were all sorts of cults on the go, and a history going back over the centuries of people's own private takes on the world. The hey-day was probably at the turn of the 20th century, but quacks and frauds have been around for many, many years. The thing is, I suppose, is that at the time Old Bro Hubbard was smashing his way into history, there weren't many that promised so much for so little, and delivered even less.
As for the science involved? nope, just a bunch of smoke and mirrors, and Hubbard, the lazy bastard he was, pillaged the unknown and sold to the gullible, the effects of which we see here. He was mucking with the mind without a map, and I am sure at some point he figured it was harmless, but the monster he created, the cult was, and is, far from benign.

My wee thought of the evening, and bugger the short edit times here at ESMB because this is the sort of post I loves to add to, but oh well

all!

Ogs

Quick edit> The dox thingy for Lron's 'scientific' blarney, ain't any, he wasn't a scientist, didn't finish or accomplish any sort of higher education, had little or no understanding of scientific protocol, was a charlatan and a thief, an abuser and a consummate liar..... that'll be 2,000$ clams please~now go away or kiss my feet....

 

[SpecialFrog]

What primarily matters in a person's life is that which he experiences for himself and not what someone else strives to prove conclusively.

And that is mine.

That depends on if you are interested in whether something is true or not. Some people do care. The consequences of quack therapy for some things is a lot higher than it is for others.

 

[SpecialFrog]

No I ain't got no specific dox's. Only my memory of what I have read in others stories about scientology and listening to all the lectures given by hubbard.

But that is the question, why no DOX even by hubbard since he said it was a Science per DMSMH. So why he no DOX? Other than his Affirmations per Gerry Armstrong.

Hubbard apparently sent his claims to the APA but they basically said, "DOX or STFU". And he had no actual evidence for his hyperbolic claims.