How to spot a Sociopath-questionaire

Gadfly

Crusader
I asserted that Scientology, by its teachings and fundamentals, cannot be a religion. There's no element of Faith in it.

There is a HUGE element of "faith" in involvement with Scientology. One MUST accept and believe a great many things that cannot be verified and which at times contradict honest observation.

Hubbard CLAIMS that a person doesn't need to believe anything, and he writes nice flowery policies like "look, don't listen" and "personal integrity", BUT in real life, when involved with the C of S, one must BELIEVE, with FAITH, in a great many things that are NOT obvious, provable or able to even be verified. There are MANY contradictions in Scientology, among the "data" itself, and between policies and practices.

As far as "faith" is concerned, KSW is a perfect example. It is only one of many possible examples. "We are the last free men and women on Earth". Really? "Scientology is the ONLY effective method out of the trap". Really? "The dwindling spiral will continue out of control UNLESS Scientologists work shoulder-to-shoulder to reverse the decline". Really? "Scientology always gets results when properly applied". Really? NONE of those statements are based on ANY evidence. They are primarily of the nature of "claims", and these claims are accepted and believed with FAITH. Actually, most are EMPTY claims. One almost has to suffer from a form of delusion to KEEP believing such nonsense after having been involved with Hubbard's charade for more than a few years. FAITH is what keeps the belief going in the face of the many obvious contradictions.

I can provide an nearly endless list of examples where any person who is firmly involved with Scientology can and does BELIEVE a great many things, and does so almost entirely ON FAITH. Because, there is simply no evidence or proof for so much of what Hubbard (and management) claims, states and asserts.

In this regard, Scientology actually DOES function as many other religions - it largely depends on faith. In belief in things unseen. On BELIEF instead of evidence.
 
Last edited:

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Seems odd that once given a workable description of a sociopath, Scientologists couldn't recognise one standing right there in front of them. Not only that, Scientologists then let another one take over the running of their religion. Couldn't have anything to do with the application of tech disrupting the functioning of their cognitive abilities, of course. Or would it?


Here's the tech of that.

1. Fly a rud.

2. "Look at that wall" to End Phenomena (EP = PC follows commands).

3. "Look at that con game over there" to End Phenomena (EP = PC follows commodores).

The trick is that the process is run by a con man.
 
Last edited:

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
All perception of benefit from ANY "therapy" or "religion" is entirely subjective and has NOTHING to do with science. That doesn't mean it isn't "real", just that science can't "measure it" in any way. There are no "scientific proofs" for ANY form of "therapy" or psychological methodology. It ALL depends on what people claim.

This is not true. As a therapy, surgery provides hugely objective results across the entire human population. So too does dental therapy, speech therapy, even art therapy has objective measures. These objective results centre around a positive change in the physiology and/or behaviour of the subjects. Sure, someone will tell you they "feel" better and that is a subjective measure, but when their behaviour and/or physical health changes positively in accord with changes in the behaviour and/or physical health of thousands of others who have had the same therapy, those results become objective. I agree, that the personal benefits of "religion" are subjective and, thus, can only be taken one success story at a time, with each as equally valid as others. Even then, however, there is some objective evidence. I've seen a population analysis study which indicates that, generally speaking, Christians in the US tend to live longer, for example. Such studies, of course, are open to the causality vs correlation criticism, but they do provide a framework for further investigation and a, albeit tremulous, basis upon which some assumptions might be made.

I am NOT "recommending" that anyone walk into ANY Church of Scientology. The downside and flaws of involvement with that organization FAR OUTWEIGH any potential benefit one might obtain from auditing. Although I might suggest someone check out some MILD version of the same in the Free Zone, as long it is mostly devoid of all the "scf-fi" and "KSW" belief nonsense (that, of course, leaves out any Marty-version or Capt Bill versions). Then someone might be able to see for his or herself whether there is anything to auditing, within a non-oppressive and "free" framework.

As far as "auditing" goes, all claims of benefit, or harm, NEVER involve "scientific evidence". It is ALL anecdotal. My only point is that if you are willing to accept ANY claim of "bad results" from auditing, that one should and must be willing to accept claims of "positive results".

Otherwise, ignore ALL aspects of auditing completely, and stick with what causes 99% of the trouble for most people most of the time anyway - the machinations of the Scientology ORGANIZATION as designed and created by Hubbard. The theory and practice of the Red Volumes (tech-tech) is largely meaningless as a basis of criticism, whereas the theory and practice of the Green Volumes (admin-tech, along with any other advices, orders or directions given by Hubbard for the operation of some aspect of the organization, such as OSA N/W Orders) IS WHERE the majority of the harmful nature of Scientology derives and occurs.

I get what you say and, all squabbles aside for the moment, you and I are in agreement in all but one major detail. My position is that the the good and the bad are interwoven, each relying on the other and combining to produce what is commonly referred to as Scientology. If the tech did actually make the able more able, then none of the pernicious policies would have ever taken such a hold and nor would there be a sociopath at the head of the religion. The evidence is that what you deem to be positive is, in fact, detrimental. Separate out the good from the bad and you no longer have Scientology. You get . . . well, I don't know what you get . . . some sort of arcane talk-therapy with a galvanic skin response meter thrown in for decoration. But its not Scientology

By all means, if people wish to induce hypnotic-like states so as to draw nearer to some UFO nirvana as part of their spiritual journey, go right ahead. Outside of the cult I'm sure its probably benign, if futile. It would be irresponsible, however, to promote such activity as being therapeutic, for two reasons: 1, there is no evidence of its therapeutic benefit, and, 2, there are far more effective, cheaper, and safer options available for those seeking a specific result in terms of therapy.

Alternatively, and an option I would like to encourage, is that Auditors get together with some professionals and design some tests to prove the therapeutic claims. The simplest would be the claim as to an increase in IQ - get a measure prior to Auditing and then measure it again after a course or two. Believe me, if such a measure could be made and the results positive, Auditors would do their practise a power of good and might even earn some serious dosh doing that one positive thing.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Alternatively, and an option I would like to encourage, is that Auditors get together with some professionals and design some tests to prove the therapeutic claims. The simplest would be the claim as to an increase in IQ - get a measure prior to Auditing and then measure it again after a course or two. Believe me, if such a measure could be made and the results positive, Auditors would do their practise a power of good and might even earn some serious dosh doing that one positive thing.

Hubbard made the claim of IQ increase as part of his general PR and bullshit trip. What do FZ/independent auditors claim? I think it true that Scn auditing on Grade 0 tends to improve one's ability to communicate, although the standard end phenomenon of being able to talk to anyone about anything is overstated.

As an example, I'm not a Scio, but I claim that my techniques are designed to relieve stress, and many have found that. I wouldn't dare claim IQ increase as a benefit of using them!

Paul
 
Top