Fundamentalist KSW IS blog: What is RIGHT with Scientology

[Gib]

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

I realize what you write. In fact I have an old 1912 " Modern Electonics" magazine I am looking at right now, and the back pages have advertising for get this, the headline of the ad: The World's Greatestest Hypnotist Writes A Book, by Herbert L. Flint, Known to the World as the Father of Modern Hypnotism, is the Author"

If I knew how to post a picture of it here on this post I would, but I don't know how to do it.

 

[Ogsonofgroo]

You'd have to scan it, then host it on a site then copy the pic url, oh well, I did find this on the infamous 'Dr.' flint > http://www.geniimagazine.com/magicpedia/Herbert_Flint

That said, there are tonnes of interesting metaphysical goings-on during the early 1900's, even the tech for the farcical e-meter was being touted (albiet mostly as a parlour endeavour/lark), the Wheatstone bridge, on which much of scientology's mind-raping is based, was well known long before Hubbard saw the hook in it that he could use.

Off to find some pics

Speshul note for those wanting to post pics and remain anon, don't link shit to yur own PC/laptop, upload to a host site under an assumed name/account first, then DL to here from there, just sayin' eh ;
Looking for pics? Google Image is an amazing resource, but, use with caution because many sites disappear and links get broken and those shit up forums, so use stable sites

 

[Gib]

You'd have to scan it, then host it on a site the copy the pic url, oh well, I did find this on the infamous 'Dr.' flint > http://www.geniimagazine.com/magicpedia/Herbert_Flint

That said, there are tonnes of interesting metaphysical goings-on during the early 1900's, even the tech for the farcical e-meter was being touted (albiet mostly as a parlour endeavour/lark), the Wheatstone bridge, on which much of scientology's mind-raping is based, was well known long before Hubbard saw the hook in it that he could use.

Off to find some pics

very true back then, But communications were very SLOW and peeps couldn't cross and compare advertising with facts and check things. Now we have the internet.
This is part of my thinking in my post and yours no doubt.

 

[Ogsonofgroo]

very true back then, But communications were very SLOW and peeps couldn't cross and compare advertising with facts and check things. Now we have the internet.
This is part of my thinking in my post and yours no doubt.

Oh yeh! I believe the term is 'cross-reference', which essentially means that anything you can look up on the internet can be verified (well most things) by looking at a multitude of different aspects, its a brilliant tool, but often only as good as the investigators patience

 

[DoneDeal]

Someone writes in the comments:

Michael,
This is an excellent blog article. Thank you for posting it. There is much right about Scientology. In fact, all of Scientology - tech, admin, ethics - is right, if rightly and standardly applied.


Who the hell are these people? WTF? All of it is right?.... I don't even know what to say. I feel sick, literally.
​

nazi types. Tend to dismiss reality while working for a greater good. They will judge you against what they see. What do they see? good question.

I remember when I was a kid watching those WW2 movies and thinking how cool and organized the nazi's looked. Loved them boots on them ss'ers.
But I didn't know that they were in the business of hatred and building their own world of rules and imposing them on everyone else. lol...it'll keep happening again and again till us humans figure it out. Which we will, could be awhile.
----------------

Hey it's the 10 year anniversary of the Dick n Bush shock and awe show!....wow... I can't believe I missed that stock opp. And only 55 killed in iraq today...just another normal day... oh oh...and...wait for it....wait for it......Chemical weapons in Syria! yeaaaahhhhh..... clue me in on the stock people....I ain't gonna miss it this time.

scn minds suck. they are all over the place.

 

[Infinite]

You'd have to scan it, then host it on a site then copy the pic url . . .

For n00bs, it can be easier to just "attach" the image file direct from their computer to their ESMB comment. Hosting images comes next, when they're hooked . . . gradient steps, remember ; )

 

[Mark A. Baker]

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.

Not really. The final arbiter for anyone is himself. Otherwise they are guaranteed to be miserable and oppressed.

A wise person realizes his own limitations and seeks out informed opinion in order to weigh for himself that which comports with reason and understanding. Yet nonetheless he reserves final judgement for himself. Moreover, he accepts responsibility for having done so whatever the outcome may be.

A fool will simply assert as true what he himself has chosen to believe. Moreover, when pressed to admit the falseness of his "truth" he denies personal culpability and blames others for his own failings of judgement.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

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

I never said that they were.

But I will point out that "success stories" often do reflect individual scientologist's "personal experiences" and "anecdotes". Nor are they all bogus.

The fact that the church attempts to use the personal gains of its parishioners for a variety of purposes included among which is the cynical exploitation of them for purposes of marketing does not negate the value of those experiences to the individuals who actually experienced them.

Personally I never cared for success stories and blew them off routinely. However, I have been more than satisfied with my personal experiences and successes with scientology tech. There were even a couple of occasions (two I recall offhand) where I volunteered a success story because of some particularly significant (to me) breakthrough. Given my attitude to success stories generally that really surprised the cr@p out of the tech staff. Nor was I alone in my attitude.

In truth, the most a success story could be said to suggest is that someone may have been satisfied with some aspect of their experience. It really isn't a particularly informative declaration, especially as too often within the church they have only been produced under some measure of intimidation.

The freezone auditors I've known do not insist upon them as they serve no purpose from a tech perspective. Anything the auditor or c/s needs to know the pc will usually have already told them or will simply offer it up spontaneously.


Mark A. Baker

 

[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

1. Individual experiences and cognitions vary with the individual.

2. What is interesting is that these can be systematically produced by the same auditing processes and with relatively little expenditure in time or effort. Were it not for the ridiculous charges traditionally mandated by church policy auditing would have been very accessible to many.


What is unique about scientology is not the reliability of producing the same outcome in all cases involving similar processing. What is really interesting is how the same simple approach to processing can fairly reliably be counted upon to produce individually unique and personally valuable benefits to, if not all, nonetheless a substantial proportion of those who receive auditing.

It's the simplicity and the reliability of producing unique cognitive insights that is truly remarkable. Prayer doesn't come close in terms of reliability. Meditation routinely takes longer and is less certain and more random in the effect.

I do happen to think that meditation used along with scientology tech can be very helpful. To my mind they play well together and each enhances the benefits to be had from the other.

Don't see the point of prayer though. If there is no god then it serves no point. If there is in fact an "omniscient god" then he already knows what's on the "wish list". With or without god the best thing to do would be to concentrate on attempting to live with both wisdom and compassion, just as is recommended in Buddhist philosophy.

That's my story and I'm sticking with it.


Mark A. Baker

 

[SpecialFrog]

A wise person realizes his own limitations and seeks out informed opinion in order to weigh for himself that which comports with reason and understanding. Yet nonetheless he reserves final judgement for himself. Moreover, he accepts responsibility for having done so whatever the outcome may be.

I agree.

That's not at all the same as this statement, which is the one with which I disagreed:

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

 

[Bill]

1. Individual experiences and cognitions vary with the individual.

2. What is interesting is that these can be systematically produced by the same auditing processes and with relatively little expenditure in time or effort. Were it not for the ridiculous charges traditionally mandated by church policy auditing would have been very accessible to many.

*Urk!*
For your first point, how is that any different from prayer or any other belief-based activity? In fact, I would say that's a strong indication of a belief-based activity.

Interestingly, your second point directly contradicts your first point. Scientology's "tech" does not "systematically produce" its results. What anyone gets from an auditing session varies greatly (as you have noted) and is unpredictable. There is no "systematically produced" anything.

If you are referring to the fairly consistent feeling of well-being produced after most sessions for believers -- well, that's just like prayer.

What is unique about scientology is not the reliability of producing the same outcome in all cases involving similar processing. What is really interesting is how the same simple approach to processing can fairly reliably be counted upon to produce individually unique and personally valuable benefits to, if not all, nonetheless a substantial proportion of those who receive auditing.

Scientology is producing the "same outcome in all cases"??? No it does not unless you are referring to the same outcome of "nothing much happened".

Seriously, you have carefully avoided answering my very simple question. What "known benefits" does Scientology produce? You've just waved your hands and sent out puffs of smoke.

It's the simplicity and the reliability of producing unique cognitive insights that is truly remarkable. Prayer doesn't come close in terms of reliability. Meditation routinely takes longer and is less certain and more random in the effect.

I do happen to think that meditation used along with scientology tech can be very helpful. To my mind they play well together and each enhances the benefits to be had from the other.

Don't see the point of prayer though. If there is no god then it serves no point. If there is in fact an "omniscient god" then he already knows what's on the "wish list". With or without god the best thing to do would be to concentrate on attempting to live with both wisdom and compassion, just as is recommended in Buddhist philosophy.

That's my story and I'm sticking with it.

Mark A. Baker

There is no "reliability" in Scientology's results. No specific results are "systematic produced" by Scientology. As you, yourself, said: Individual experiences and cognitions vary with the individual -- from absolutely nothing for most people who have experienced Scientology to "benefits" that are far, far, far short of the promises of Scientology.

You know and we know that, in actual practice, Scientology makes no guarantees of specific results because it can't produce specific results. We all know that Scientology does not produce Releases, Clears and OTs. We all know that Scientology does not produce the "cures" Hubbard promised.

You have not, and cannot, list specific "known benefits" that Scientology can and consistently does produce. You can't because "it all varies depending on the individual".

Seriously, I have talked to many, many Scientologists and ex-Scientologists. You know what was most consistent? The "ruin" they went into Scientology to handle wasn't handled. And these were problems that Scientology specifically says it "can handle that". Scientology cannot and does not produce predictable, consistent or reliable results.

Am I describing prayer or Scientology auditing?

• The believer often feels "uplifted" following the action.
• The benefit derived from the action varies from individual to individual, day to day.
• The benefit, if it appears, is most often related to what was concentrated on during the action.
• Unrelated benefits, not occuring during the action, are consistently attributed to the action by believers.
• Fantastic benefits are claimed for participation in the action but the stories are anecdotal and third hand.
• The more you believe, the more likely it is you'll "get benefits" from the action.

Eh? Prayer or Scientology auditing? -- It's a trick question, I was describing both.

Bill

 

[PirateAndBum]

*Urk!*
For your first point, how is that any different from prayer or any other belief-based activity? In fact, I would say that's a strong indication of a belief-based activity.

Interestingly, your second point directly contradicts your first point. Scientology's "tech" does not "systematically produce" its results. What anyone gets from an auditing session varies greatly (as you have noted) and is unpredictable. There is no "systematically produced" anything.

If you are referring to the fairly consistent feeling of well-being produced after most sessions for believers -- well, that's just like prayer.


Scientology is producing the "same outcome in all cases"??? No it does not unless you are referring to the same outcome of "nothing much happened".

Seriously, you have carefully avoided answering my very simple question. What "known benefits" does Scientology produce? You've just waved your hands and sent out puffs of smoke.


There is no "reliability" in Scientology's results. No specific results are "systematic produced" by Scientology. As you, yourself, said: Individual experiences and cognitions vary with the individual -- from absolutely nothing for most people who have experienced Scientology to "benefits" that are far, far, far short of the promises of Scientology.

You know and we know that, in actual practice, Scientology makes no guarantees of specific results because it can't produce specific results. We all know that Scientology does not produce Releases, Clears and OTs. We all know that Scientology does not produce the "cures" Hubbard promised.

You have not, and cannot, list specific "known benefits" that Scientology can and consistently does produce. You can't because "it all varies depending on the individual".

Seriously, I have talked to many, many Scientologists and ex-Scientologists. You know what was most consistent? The "ruin" they went into Scientology to handle wasn't handled. And these were problems that Scientology specifically says it "can handle that". Scientology cannot and does not produce predictable, consistent or reliable results.

Am I describing prayer or Scientology auditing?

• The believer often feels "uplifted" following the action.
• The benefit derived from the action varies from individual to individual, day to day.
• The benefit, if it appears, is most often related to what was concentrated on during the action.
• Unrelated benefits, not occuring during the action, are consistently attributed to the action by believers.
• Fantastic benefits are claimed for participation in the action but the stories are anecdotal and third hand.
• The more you believe, the more likely it is you'll "get benefits" from the action.

Eh? Prayer or Scientology auditing? -- It's a trick question, I was describing both.

Bill

Prayer never gave me a feeling of well-being. Never did much of anything for me personally. Auditing on the other hand did do something for me. It let me sort out numerous bits of baggage that I was carrying along through time. I found this to be personally beneficial. I have also seen it produce benefit in another that I audited. I am of the opinion that the main problem with auditing is that people don't get enough of it. Nor are the person's own "want's handled" addressed. This is a major fuckup on Hubbard's part - the cookie cutter nature of "the Bridge" among the numerous other fuckups he devised.

Auditing can and has done good things for many people in their own estimation. Has it made any mini gods? No. Could it? Well actually I think that auditing possibly could if done long enough and was directed at the right target. How long? That depends on the being, might take a few lifetimes, might take one. If the Gotama Siddhartha could sit under a bohdi tree for 40 days and solo audit himself to enlightenment then why not others?

Scientology does "systematically produce" results - it produces ex-scientologists.

 

[Bill]

Prayer never gave me a feeling of well-being. Never did much of anything for me personally. Auditing on the other hand did do something for me. It let me sort out numerous bits of baggage that I was carrying along through time. I found this to be personally beneficial. I have also seen it produce benefit in another that I audited. I am of the opinion that the main problem with auditing is that people don't get enough of it. Nor are the person's own "want's handled" addressed. This is a major fuckup on Hubbard's part - the cookie cutter nature of "the Bridge" among the numerous other fuckups he devised.

Auditing can and has done good things for many people in their own estimation. Has it made any mini gods? No. Could it? Well actually I think that auditing possibly could if done long enough and was directed at the right target. How long? That depends on the being, might take a few lifetimes, might take one. If the Gotama Siddhartha could sit under a bohdi tree for 40 days and solo audit himself to enlightenment then why not others?

Scientology does "systematically produce" results - it produces ex-scientologists.

I don't doubt for a minute that Scientology "does something", I've never said otherwise. My continuing point is that it isn't predictable, consistent or reliable in what it produces -- and that it never, ever produced the promised miracles.

While I admire your optimism, I think, after sixty years, tens of thousands of practitioners and, perhaps, tens of millions of hours of processing, that if Scientology were capable of producing any of its miracles, it would have done so.

For some people, Scientology makes them feel good and they feel they are "improving". That's great. No problem. Same thing for people in many, many other belief systems, technologies and practices. For those who get something "good" out of one of these practices, wonderful! But a key point is that Scientology does not produce anything different from these other practices.

There is no result from Scientology that is unique to Scientology -- except it does significantly more harm than most other such systems, technologies and practices. And, as you say, it consistently produces ex-Scientologists.

I make this point because Scientology uses its descriptions and promises of "miraculous gains" in order to trap people. That's why each time someone makes claims that Scientology produces "Releases", "Clears", "OTs", "cures this", says "Scientology can handle that" or "Scientology could help X" it is important to point out that it is all complete bullshit.

Any "gains" from Scientology are because the person believed and was capable of making the improvement on their own. Scientology was incidental at best and could be replaced by any practice that allows the practitioner to make such realizations.

I say, defuse the trap, always debunk Scientology's bogus claims.

Bill

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... Scientology is producing the "same outcome in all cases"??? No it does not unless you are referring to the same outcome of "nothing much happened". ...

Nor did I say it did, Bill.

Go back and read my post.

... What is unique about scientology is not the reliability of producing the same outcome in all cases involving similar processing. ... (emphasis added to help Bill)

... Seriously, you have carefully avoided answering my very simple question. ...

Actually I answered you clearly and directly. You just don't like (or apparently understand, see above) my answers.

... There is no "reliability" in Scientology's results. No specific results are "systematic produced" by Scientology. ...

As previously stated ...

... What is unique about scientology is not the reliability of producing the same outcome in all cases involving similar processing. What is really interesting is how the same simple approach to processing can fairly reliably be counted upon to produce individually unique and personally valuable benefits to, if not all, nonetheless a substantial proportion of those who receive auditing. ...

What is reliable about scientology is not that it produces the same results in all people. It doesn't. Wouldn't be especially helpful if it did even if that was how hubbard chose to market it.

BTW, I'm not hubbard, nor am I marketing scientology; either in his way or in some other. You appear to be confused on that point.

Yet what is genuinely quite remarkable about the subject is it's reliability as a methodology for facilitating individual cognitions and epiphanies. That is actually far more remarkable as a verifiable phenomenon than the promises that hubbard routinely made for the subject. Whereas the phenomena of cognitions and epiphanies are common enough to be well known throughout the history of mankind, nonetheless they are remarkably rare in the life of any individual; certainly to the degree that they constitute a deep insight or transformative experience.

The existence of specific techniques which can reliably be expected to aid in the process of such self discovery is itself uniquely valuable. Scientology and dianetic auditing techniques are remarkably effective and reliable at facilitating the experience of personal epiphanies of various degrees. That is both somewhat surprising and worthy of note.

Accordingly the basic auditing techniques of the subject of scientology can be counted upon to serve reliably in that role, whether you choose to recognize it or not.

... -- It's a trick question, I was describing both.

Bill

Actually you are just arguing with yourself; a far more futile activity.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Bill]

Seriously, you have carefully avoided answering my very simple question. What "known benefits" does Scientology produce? You've just waved your hands and sent out puffs of smoke.

Actually I answered you clearly and directly. You just don't like (or apparently understand, see above) my answers.

You did? Gee I surely did miss it - and I looked everywhere for it.

Let's go back to the original statement you made about how Scientology was so superior to prayer:

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

Mark A. Baker

Everything you said in your response about Scientology's benefits is definitely claimed for prayer as well.

You categorically stated that Scientology provides additional "benefits known to be had from auditing" that were never claimed for prayer. So I'm asking you to specify exactly what are those "known benefits" that are not claimed for prayer.

I certainly don't know of any but you say these benefits are known so you must know what they are -- so what are they? Specifically, because, so far, it's all generalities and hand-waving -- nothing you've claimed so far as a Scientology benefit is actually unique to Scientology.

"Scientology can help facilitate individual cognitions and epiphanies."
"Prayer can help facilitate individual cognitions and epiphanies."
"Therapy can help facilitate individual cognitions and epiphanies."
"Meditation can help facilitate individual cognitions and epiphanies."
"A walk in the forest can help facilitate individual cognitions and epiphanies."
Geez, give me a break. What specific and unique benefit does Scientology provide that isn't available elsewhere.

Bill

 

[PirateAndBum]

I don't doubt for a minute that Scientology "does something", I've never said otherwise. My continuing point is that it isn't predictable, consistent or reliable in what it produces -- and that it never, ever produced the promised miracles.

While I admire your optimism, I think, after sixty years, tens of thousands of practitioners and, perhaps, tens of millions of hours of processing, that if Scientology were capable of producing any of its miracles, it would have done so.

For some people, Scientology makes them feel good and they feel they are "improving". That's great. No problem. Same thing for people in many, many other belief systems, technologies and practices. For those who get something "good" out of one of these practices, wonderful! But a key point is that Scientology does not produce anything different from these other practices.

There is no result from Scientology that is unique to Scientology -- except it does significantly more harm than most other such systems, technologies and practices. And, as you say, it consistently produces ex-Scientologists.

I make this point because Scientology uses its descriptions and promises of "miraculous gains" in order to trap people. That's why each time someone makes claims that Scientology produces "Releases", "Clears", "OTs", "cures this", says "Scientology can handle that" or "Scientology could help X" it is important to point out that it is all complete bullshit.

Any "gains" from Scientology are because the person believed and was capable of making the improvement on their own. Scientology was incidental at best and could be replaced by any practice that allows the practitioner to make such realizations.

I say, defuse the trap, always debunk Scientology's bogus claims.

Bill

There is a consistency to the results of applying processes to individuals. The specific result may vary from one person to the next, but there is a result. I have heard of miracles - a person's body healing with before and after xray evidence. This of course is not unique to Scn, people have miraculous healing from other things. Miracles are not common, that's for sure. But a miracle is a relative thing. Turning water into wine is one kind of miracle, but for some no longer having some pain or self-destructive mental process that has been plaguing them for years is considered a miracle. Poof, it's just gone - relief. In my opinion that's not something to sneer at.

60 years of practice doesn't mean that any one individual ever invested enough time on the right things to attain whatever it was they were after. Hubbard's "Bridge" clearly is not the right thing. However that doesn't mean that the knowledge gleaned from this "investigation" is insufficient to make forward progress. There is a difference between knowledge about the mind and spirit and the organization and "policy" Hubbard invented in his attempt to monopolize and control.

Clearly Hubbard had dual intentions. I must grant that the man was trying to resolve the mind. I must also grant that he had a purpose to make slaves of men. One intent was clearly stated, the latter was hidden. Many people assisted in his stated intent and quite a lot of work was put into this idea of freeing people from what ailed them. Unfortunately Hubbard's greed and lust for power shaped a movement that if taken in a different direction could have turned out quite differently.

I can't agree that any gains are solely due to the person's belief. Yes, a person is capable of self-improvement. I don't think these "gains" were incidental to the processes run. That other practices can bring about similar gains I won't dispute. Hubbard's insistence on Scn being the only road is just typical Hubbard BS and buying such is part of the trap that he wittingly crafted.

Hubbard failed. He failed because of his own short-comings. Just because he failed is no reason that others cannot take what was learned, and move onward in the efforts to assist oneself and one's fellows live better lives in their own estimation. This is what got us on-board and it was the betrayal of that purpose that got us off-board.

Certainly we don't need hype and lies.

We are evolving. Where do we want to go? Mind is a tool. Like a chainsaw, it can be used to do useful things and it can also cut off your leg if you don't understand how to use it properly.

Expose the trap that Hubbard crafted. But don't lose sight of the reasons that brought you in. Just because Hubbard built a trap is no reason that all will build such traps. Fortunately there are few that have the goal to enslave. Don't give up on those that wish to advance humanity in the direction of freedom and better understandings.

 

[TG1]

What does "miracle" actually mean?

"Miracle" is a word that means "something that happened (usually positive and with long odds of happening) for which I can't assign a specific cause."

But not being able to understand or explain something doesn't automatically put it in the "supernatural" category. It only means you don't know WHAT caused it.

What causes these things?

1. Cancer disappears.

2. Depression lifts.

3. Someone wakes up from a six-month coma.

4. An Arkansas couple wins two good-sized lotteries in the same week.

5. I ran into my cousin from Texas while standing in a movie queue in Moscow.

Was it ... karma? Kismet? Prayers answered? Command intention? A miracle?

Or was it ... remission? A human neural system rewiring itself? The wrong drug administered in error by a sleepy med tech? Random chance? Twelve thousand miles away a butterly flapped its wings?

TG1

 

[uniquemand]

Some things don't have simple causality (in fact, it's probably rare that things have only one agent acting on them at one time). This is one of the reasons that when things happen, they seem inexplicable. Perhaps the cancer wasn't genetic, but was due to cosmic rays. Perhaps the cosmic rays triggered an unusual genetic sequence. Perhaps that wouldn't have been particularly dangerous except the person was under stress so their whole system was not working properly. Who knows what else came into play.

While we like to believe we create our own success and are responsible for our acts, I'd argue that this disregards the influence of all other living beings and the physical universe, itself. Certainly we have to try, and certainly you don't put yourself in danger if you can avoid it or if there is no payoff, but nobody can account for all factors, because all factors cannot be known simultaneously prior to any particular act. This is why persistence is necessary and virtuous. If at first you don't succeed, try and try again, because you never know when you'll get the help you need, but you can be pretty sure it won't happen if you don't persist.

 

[Alle G]

I partially agree and partially diagree with Bill and Mark.

Nothing in the world works 100%. Hubbard was stupid to say so. Talk therapies don’t work 100% and don’t produce predictable and consistent results. Results vary hugely. Theories behind these therapies vary too, Freud’s theory is not accepted 100%, however psychoanalysis ‘works’, no matter how inefficiently.

Scientology could be one of the alternative talk therapies, producing some improvements (not miracles), if people want to separate therapy part from brainwashing part. (I personally think it is impossible, as therapy serves as a vehicle for brainwashing, the whole thing stinks too much, but it is beside the point).

Scientology also ‘works’ as a mind control system, it successfully produced enough True Believers to count it ‘workable’. I would even say highly workable, as so far I have not read any convincing essays or books, where an insider could recognize and identify each step of their own conversion. I think, for brainwashing to be successful it has to be unsuspected and unrecognized, and even maybe pleasant or exiting.

And, if anyone knows of any such essays could you please direct me to them.
Thanks
Alle

 

[Bill]

There is a consistency to the results of applying processes to individuals. The specific result may vary from one person to the next, but there is a result.

I think I'm seeing a consistency in answers here. But they vary from comment to comment...

However, I am seeing a general agreement amongst all but the most die-hard believers that

1. Scientology does not produce results that cannot be achieved in other ways,
2. Scientology's results are not reliable, consistent or predictable. "Something" is likely to happen, but no one can predict what,
3. While "something" may happen, it will vary from bad to good, again, no one can predict which -- although, as with any other practice, believers only remember and pass on the good.
4. Scientology carries a lot baggage that can be quite harmful,
5. Scientology's harmful parts would probably be difficult to remove from the rest.

You know, I don't think I'm seeing any ringing endorsement of Scientology over other methods of enlightenment/improvement/etc. The only thing Scientology had going for it was a better PR department - but that's no longer true.

Bill