Thinking Critically About Scientology, Psychiatry, and Their Feud

KnightVision

Gold Meritorious Patron
Here is an excellent article about the Scio/Psycho Fued:

Thinking Critically About Scientology, Psychiatry, and Their Feud
stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust mixx.com
Posted September 10, 2008 | 11:29 AM (EST)

For many Americans who gain their information solely from television, all critics of psychiatry are Scientologists, exemplified by Tom Cruise spewing at Matt Lauer, "You don't know the history of psychiatry. . . . Matt, you're so glib." The mass media has been highly successful in convincing Americans to associate criticism of psychiatry with anti-drug zealots from the Church of Scientology, the lucrative invention of science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard.

However, Americans who gain their information outside of television and beyond the mass media may be aware of a secular, progressive tradition that is critical of how psychiatry has diverted us from examining societal sources of our malaise. This secular, humanistic concern was articulated, perhaps most famously, by the psychoanalyst Erich Fromm (1900-1980).

In The Sane Society (1955), Fromm wrote:

"Yet many psychiatrists and psychologists refuse to entertain the idea that society as a whole may be lacking in sanity. They hold that the problem of mental health in a society is only that of the number of 'unadjusted' individuals, and not of a possible unadjustment of the culture itself."

-snip-


The source of the mutual hostility between psychiatry and the Church of Scientology, as depicted by the mass media, centers around psychotropic drug use; but my sense is that the root cause of their feud is a fierce competition between them. Both establishment psychiatry and Scientology are competing for the same people -- those more comfortable with authority, dogma, and insider jargon than with critical thinking.

Both the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard and psychiatry's DSM (the official diagnostic manual in which mental illnesses are voted in and out by elite psychiatrists) have much more to do with dogma than science. Both Scientology and psychiatry embrace science fiction techno-babble that poses as scientific fact. In Scientology's "auditing," the claim is that the Hubbard Electropsychometer (E-Meter) can assess the reactive mind of the preclear by passing a small amount of voltage through a pair of tin-plated tubes that look like empty soup cans which are wired to the E-Meter and held by the preclear. But psychiatry is no more scientifically relevant, as its trendy chemical-imbalance theories of mental illness have shelf-lives of about a decade, with establishment psychiatry most recently having retreated from both their serotonin-deficiency theory of depression and the excessive-dopamine theory of schizophrenia.

While Scientology can claim auditing adherents, and psychiatry can claim even more antidepressant advocates, neither treatment has been shown to be consistently superior to a placebo. And rather than validating their treatments with legitimate science performed by independent, financially unbiased scientists, both Scientology and psychiatry rely on what amounts to a well-funded public relations apparatus.

Full article Link here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-e-levine/thinking-critically-about_b_125019.html
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
This is misuse of "moral equivalency". Scintology is not morally or intellectually equivalent to psychiatry. Scientology is an amateurish quackery and psychiatry is a profession.

Granted that psychiatry has its bad results but bear in mind

1) Scientology refuses to touch the mentally ill , to help them or to make them better. It's only performance in this regard has been to take individuals and make them crazy.

2) psychiatry specializes in dealing with the mentally ill.

The twit that wrote this has bought into Scientology propaganda - there is no comparison between the two.
 

Magpie

Patron
Dianetics is simply a better idea

At the risk of getting slapped down again, which is fine, go right ahead and do that if you want, do allow my viewpoint that Ron Hubbard did courageously change civilization for the better in 1950 with his publication of Dianetics.


I have never had difficulty with Dianetics, I have seen it work fine with routinely good success. Sure is a remarkable improvement over an icepick in the eye with electric shock tossed in.


Ron Hubbard did something constructive in 1950 about 1949 era psychiatry. Look up for yourself which lobotomist won a Nobel prize back then, and for what, and maybe your jaw will drop an inch or two.


Reference this thread which was suppressed and retired by Emma:


http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=3772


As a footnote, I find it interesting that viewpoints which Emma does not like simply get squashed. Another specific example would be Alanzo's thread: "I love Scientologists".


I do not advocate for any form of irrational aberration; I am instead in favor of simply and rationally auditing it out.


Better ideas can take a while to catch on. The better Christian idea of "love the sinner, but not the sin" was banned, suppressed, and outlawed by Nero but subsequently adopted by Constantine several centuries later.


This is how I see it from my own experience, and that's my viewpoint, and I have no intention of getting into any argument about it.
 

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
(snip)

2) psychiatry specializes in dealing with the mentally ill.

Vast numbers of children are being drugged through the auspices of psychiatry. I don't believe the large majority are "mentally ill" any more than I believe the drugs really help them.

So called "professions" can be a source of racketeering and gangsterism as Enron and the mortgage crisis have so well demonstrated.

I would say let's take all groups on their merits, not their apparent standing.
 
Last edited:

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
(snip)

"This is how I see it from my own experience, and that's my viewpoint, and I have no intention of getting into any argument about it."

You are entitled to your viewpoint and entitled not to argue about it. I did look at that thread. You were banned because of association with a practice from another site, and because you chose not to communicate with other board members. That won't fly here. Neither will taking shots at Emma, who has put a great deal of time and energy into assuring people leaving the 21st century COS have a place to speak their minds. Many for the first time in decades.

So let's take a deep breath. You have a right to feel as you do but so do others. If you want to post without discussion I suggest one per year will keep you above water. More than that and you'll have to take your chances.
 

KnightVision

Gold Meritorious Patron
science fiction techno-babble

For me the revelant issue in the article is this:

Both the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard and psychiatry's DSM (the official diagnostic manual in which mental illnesses are voted in and out by elite psychiatrists) have much more to do with dogma than science. Both Scientology and psychiatry embrace science fiction techno-babble that poses as scientific fact.

and this:

And rather than validating their treatments with legitimate science performed by independent, financially unbiased scientists, both Scientology and psychiatry rely on what amounts to a well-funded public relations apparatus.

The point of the article is that BOTH Psychiatry's over zealious push to prescribe antidepressants as the "Authorative Solution" AS WELL AS Scientology's menicial insistance that Dianetic Processing and OT processes are the "Authority on the Mind" ARE INSANE AND IRRATIONAL.

Now- do some people attain helpful results from both of these practices? Yes, apparently they do. And many others derive benefit from altogether different practices and solutions. When any organization attempts to monopolize the "psychological help" market, they should be looked at closely using critical thought. No doubt, "BIG HOLES" will be found in their proffered "Scientific Knowledge" babbling... If critical thought were used to identify the actual cause behind a problem we would arrive at truths rather than bogus claims; which often state that they work based on the number of people that claim "I feel better".
 

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
For me the revelant issue in the article is this:

Both the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard and psychiatry's DSM (the official diagnostic manual in which mental illnesses are voted in and out by elite psychiatrists) have much more to do with dogma than science. Both Scientology and psychiatry embrace science fiction techno-babble that poses as scientific fact.

and this:

And rather than validating their treatments with legitimate science performed by independent, financially unbiased scientists, both Scientology and psychiatry rely on what amounts to a well-funded public relations apparatus.

The point of the article is that BOTH Psychiatry's over zealious push to prescribe antidepressants as the "Authorative Solution" AS WELL AS Scientology's menicial insistance that Dianetic Processing and OT processes are the "Authority on the Mind" ARE INSANE AND IRRATIONAL.

Now- do some people attain helpful results from both of these practices? Yes, apparently they do. And many others derive benefit from altogether different practices and solutions. When any organization attempts to monopolize the "psychological help" market, they should be looked at closely using critical thought. No doubt, "BIG HOLES" will be found in their proffered "Scientific Knowledge" babbling... If critical thought were used to identify the actual cause behind a problem we would arrive at truths rather than bogus claims; which often state that they work based on the number of people that claim "I feel better".

I agree, and add that both the COS and psychiatry have succeeded to a large degree because they cause effects. In many people any change is seen as improvement whether it is or not. At least they don't feel the same. In the case of both organizations their "drug" can lead to less understanding and awareness, not more.
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
For me the revelant issue in the article is this:

Both the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard and psychiatry's DSM (the official diagnostic manual in which mental illnesses are voted in and out by elite psychiatrists) have much more to do with dogma than science. Both Scientology and psychiatry embrace science fiction techno-babble that poses as scientific fact.

I work with psychiatrists every day including those doing research.

Where did you get the "dogma" from? You say that psychiatry is more dogma than science - based on what study and experience?

and this:

And rather than validating their treatments with legitimate science performed by independent, financially unbiased scientists, both Scientology and psychiatry rely on what amounts to a well-funded public relations apparatus.

Your evidence?

The point of the article is that BOTH Psychiatry's over zealious push to prescribe antidepressants as the "Authorative Solution" AS WELL AS Scientology's menicial insistance that Dianetic Processing and OT processes are the "Authority on the Mind" ARE INSANE AND IRRATIONAL.

Actually not, but true enough, psychiatry does tend to follow the easy route when it comes to treatments sometimes.


Now- do some people attain helpful results from both of these practices? Yes, apparently they do. And many others derive benefit from altogether different practices and solutions. When any organization attempts to monopolize the "psychological help" market, they should be looked at closely using critical thought. No doubt, "BIG HOLES" will be found in their proffered "Scientific Knowledge" babbling... If critical thought were used to identify the actual cause behind a problem we would arrive at truths rather than bogus claims; which often state that they work based on the number of people that claim "I feel better".

I agree with that.
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
At the risk of getting slapped down again, which is fine, go right ahead and do that if you want, do allow my viewpoint that Ron Hubbard did courageously change civilization for the better in 1950 with his publication of Dianetics.

roflmao. Hubbard changed nothing for the better and madea lot of lives worse.


I have never had difficulty with Dianetics, I have seen it work fine with routinely good success. Sure is a remarkable improvement over an icepick in the eye with electric shock tossed in.

wow - why don't you just get the results in, quantify them and publish a thorough research paper - or should your word be enough?

Ron Hubbard did something constructive in 1950 about 1949 era psychiatry. Look up for yourself which lobotomist won a Nobel prize back then, and for what, and maybe your jaw will drop an inch or two.

Hubbard did something about his finances that is true.


As a footnote, I find it interesting that viewpoints which Emma does not like simply get squashed. Another specific example would be Alanzo's thread: "I love Scientologists".

and your point is? It's Emma's forum - she built it, she maintains it and she can do whatever the hell she likes with it. I find it idiotic (but thats scientology for you I guess) that anyone would expect her to tolerate things she finds ridiculous and objectional on HER message boards.

I do not advocate for any form of irrational aberration; I am instead in favor of simply and rationally auditing it out.

jeez - advocating using quack idiocy as a solution to something? Oh no.

Better ideas can take a while to catch on. The better Christian idea of "love the sinner, but not the sin" was banned, suppressed, and outlawed by Nero but subsequently adopted by Constantine several centuries later.

You may want to actually study history instead of trying to sound good. Not at all what happened.


This is how I see it from my own experience, and that's my viewpoint, and I have no intention of getting into any argument about it.

oh good.
 

KnightVision

Gold Meritorious Patron
For me the revelant issue in the article is this:

Both the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard and psychiatry's DSM (the official diagnostic manual in which mental illnesses are voted in and out by elite psychiatrists) have much more to do with dogma than science. Both Scientology and psychiatry embrace science fiction techno-babble that poses as scientific fact.

and this:

And rather than validating their treatments with legitimate science performed by independent, financially unbiased scientists, both Scientology and psychiatry rely on what amounts to a well-funded public relations apparatus.
[/B]

Hi Mick,

These statements are taken directly from part of the article referred to in my originating thread: Thinking Critically About Scientology, Psychiatry, and Their Feud- Written by
Bruce E. Levine, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist

His Bio is here:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-e-levine

Article Link here:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-..._b_125019.html

Have a look and let me know what you think. Thanks:thumbsup:
 

KnightVision

Gold Meritorious Patron
Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits:

Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration

Quote:

What Do These Findings Mean?
These findings suggest that, compared with placebo, the new-generation antidepressants do not produce clinically significant improvements in depression in patients who initially have moderate or even very severe depression, but show significant effects only in the most severely depressed patients. The findings also show that the effect for these patients seems to be due to decreased responsiveness to placebo, rather than increased responsiveness to medication. Given these results, the researchers conclude that there is little reason to prescribe new-generation antidepressant medications to any but the most severely depressed patients unless alternative treatments have been ineffective. In addition, the finding that extremely depressed patients are less responsive to placebo than less severely depressed patients but have similar responses to antidepressants is a potentially important insight into how patients with depression respond to antidepressants and placebos that should be investigated further.

Article Here:
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/pe...ocument&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050045&ct=1
 

KnightVision

Gold Meritorious Patron
A Doctor's Report on Dianetics

A Doctor's Report on Dianetics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A Doctor's Report on Dianetics
Author Joseph A. Winter
Country United States
Language English
Subject(s) Dianetics, Psychotherapy
Genre(s) non-fiction
Publisher Julian Messner
Crown Publishing Group
Publication date 1951, 1987
Media type Hardcover
ISBN ISBN 051-756-4211
A Doctor's Report on Dianetics: Theory and Therapy is a non-fiction book analyzing Dianetics. The book was authored by Joseph Augustus Winter, M.D., with an introduction by Frederick Perls, M.D., Ph.D.
The book was first published in hardcover by Julian Messner, in 1951, and published again in 1987, by Crown Publishing Group. The work was the first book published that was critical of L. Ron Hubbard.[1]
Contents [hide]
1 About the author
2 Main points
3 Critical reception
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
[edit]About the author

Dr. Winter had previously served on the Board of Directors of L. Ron Hubbard's Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation, but resigned in October 1950 over differences on how to employ the Dianetics techniques.[1] Dr. Winter was also Medical Director of the Foundation.[2] He also wrote the introduction to Hubbard's Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.[3] Prior to his falling out with Hubbard, Dr. Winter stated that he had used Dianetics to cure his six-year-old son of fears of ghosts and the dark.[2]
[edit]Main points

A Doctor's Report on Dianetics: Theory and Therapy gives credit to the concepts of Dianetics which the author adheres to, and also cites the particular issues that Dr. Winter disagrees with.[4] Dr. Winter agreed with L. Ron Hubbard's concept of the engram, writing that engrams can be formed in the prenatal stage, but he disagreed with Hubbard's concept of the "sperm dream", asserting that this was something purely imagined by the patient.[4] This concept was later analyzed in Culture and Experience.[5]
Dr. Winter also objected to patients recalling deaths from previous reincarnations, Hubbard's authoritarian attitude and disregard for usage of the scientific method, and Hubbard's view that anyone could become an auditor.[6][2][4][1] According to Winter, repeated attempts to try to convince Hubbard to utilize a minimum standard upon which to test student applicants was not successful.[1] Dr. Winter wrote that Hubbard's techniques did not always cure, but sometimes harmed the patient,[7] and that he had yet to observe a single "Clear".[8][7][1] Though Hubbard claimed that a Clear had been obtained after twenty-four hours of therapy, Dr. Winter never observed an individual reach the state of Clear or display any of the unique abilities attributed to a Clear by Hubbard during his time practicing Dianetics.[8] Dr. Winter also believed that some people became psychotic due to their involvement with Dianetics, and he included a case study in the book.[3]
Dr. Winter also took time in his book to rebuke Hubbard's "Guk" program, which was a combination of vitamins and glutamic acid that was meant to make dianetics subjects "run better".[2][1][9]
[edit]Critical reception

The work was called an important new book on psychotherapy, in Pastoral Psychology.[10] Gardner analyzes the book extensively in Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science.[4] Gardner wrote that the "most revealing" material in A Doctor's Report on Dianetics, were the records of the author's own auditing sessions.[4] Aleksandrovich wrote in The Ways and Power of Love that though Dr. Winter wrote an enthusiastic "Introduction" to Hubbard's Dianetics, his own book exposed some of Hubbard's more "charlatanish" claims.[7] The book was also reviewed in The American Journal of Psychology[9] and The American Journal of Psychiatry.[11] In a review of the book in Psychosomatic Medicine,[12] Egloff wrote that Winter did a "relatively good, factual job" and provided a "fairly clear, dispassionate view of dianetics".[12] The book is referenced in Stark's The Future of Religion,[13] and in Gerbode's Beyond Psychology.[14]
[edit]

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Doctor's_Report_on_Dianetics
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Where is there a feud between 'psychiatry' and 'Scientology'? Certainly Scientology is anti-'Psychs' (not just psychiatry), but, for the most part, psychiatry, psychology and related fields and organizations totally ignore Scientology.

Rightly so, since it's a social disease better addressed by police agencies, and, on an individual basis, by social workers helping to reintegrate the displaced and victimized.

Zinj
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
Where is there a feud between 'psychiatry' and 'Scientology'? Certainly Scientology is anti-'Psychs' (not just psychiatry), but, for the most part, psychiatry, psychology and related fields and organizations totally ignore Scientology.

Rightly so, since it's a social disease better addressed by police agencies, and, on an individual basis, by social workers helping to reintegrate the displaced and victimized.

Zinj


zackly.

Psychiatry -medical profession

Scientology - social gonorrhea.
 

KnightVision

Gold Meritorious Patron
Where is there a feud between 'psychiatry' and 'Scientology'? Certainly Scientology is anti-'Psychs' (not just psychiatry), but, for the most part, psychiatry, psychology and related fields and organizations totally ignore Scientology.

Rightly so, since it's a social disease better addressed by police agencies, and, on an individual basis, by social workers helping to reintegrate the displaced and victimized.

Zinj

I hear that. Other than the initial reports from I believe Britain, when the Psychs deemed Dianetic processing quackery- I'm not aware of any on going attacks.

I'm beginning to see a pattern in Scientology's attacks of others... Many of their accusations are actually the very things that Scientology is Guilty of.

That Psychiatry is nonsense & not scientific.... = Scientology Guilty of

That an evil group of Bankers want to enslave man... ditto

That your mind has commands mysteriously "implanted" in it ... ditto

That suppressive people want to stop your progress... ditto

That the AMA wants to keep you sick for profit... ditto

That The Education System wants to control + limit your knowledge... ditto

That Jesus was sexually "abberated"... ditto

That all other attempts to save man have failed... ditto

That all other management tech is a failure... ditto



It's dumbfounding!
 

Magpie

Patron
Regarding the better idea introduced in 1950 ...

So I noticed Emma suppressing communication, and I then I specified two exact threads where I observed her doing this. It's merely an observation.

Re-read post three above for context.

I am not upset about Emma's suppression of communication of views that she disagrees with. I figure it is her own free choice whether she wants to be message board founder or message board supreme cult leader or message board administrator. I see no rational reason to be angry or upset about this.

Maybe Alanzo was reactively or legitimately pissed at Emma's suppression of his communication on his thread: "I Love Scientologists". Or maybe not. Maybe he just is exercising his own free choice or whether to communicate or not to communicate.

I essentially like and therefore also mostly believe in the basic idea of rationally free communication within a rationally free civilization. I am not particularly fond of and therefore do not also much believe in the basic idea of irrationally suppressed communication within an irrationally suppressed civilization. I suppose there are a great many gradations between the two ends of this rather intriguing dichotomy.

I believe that Ron Hubbard did much good for civilization back in May of 1950 when he introduced Dianetics. This was, in my view, certainly an improvement over psychiatry of 1949. I suppose there was then a 'battle of ideas' ... perhaps for some still ongoing today.

It is obvious to me that Ron Hubbard had the better idea in 1950 when he introduced the idea of erasing the engram. A psychiatrist in 1949 got a nobel prize for the idea of doing quite the exact opposite, adding in engrams, specifically with icepick through the eyehole with extreme electric shock producing the painful engram of unconsciousness.


Reference: http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=3772


As you may have noticed, I am simply and quietly communicating my own viewpoint here, and without immersing into heated irrational argument. The next several centuries of future history should be very interesting.
 

gomorrhan

Gold Meritorious Patron
I observe that you start your communication by discussing a conflict between Alanzo and Emma. I don't recall seeing any suppression of anyone's communication from Emma.

Far as I know, Alanzo's post wasn't altered or deleted. Sounds like his comm got through and was duplicated for all to see.
 

gomorrhan

Gold Meritorious Patron
Well, that may be true. I don't really pay much attention to conflicts between others. Alls I know about it is that apparently there was a conflict. I don't really care. Emma doesn't have to agree with Alanzo. Her disagreement is not suppression.
 
So I noticed Emma suppressing communication, and I then I specified two exact threads where I observed her doing this. It's merely an observation.

Re-read post three above for context.

I am not upset about Emma's suppression of communication of views that she disagrees with. I figure it is her own free choice whether she wants to be message board founder or message board supreme cult leader or message board administrator. I see no rational reason to be angry or upset about this.

Maybe Alanzo was reactively or legitimately pissed at Emma's suppression of his communication on his thread: "I Love Scientologists". Or maybe not. Maybe he just is exercising his own free choice or whether to communicate or not to communicate.

I essentially like and therefore also mostly believe in the basic idea of rationally free communication within a rationally free civilization. I am not particularly fond of and therefore do not also much believe in the basic idea of irrationally suppressed communication within an irrationally suppressed civilization. I suppose there are a great many gradations between the two ends of this rather intriguing dichotomy.

I believe that Ron Hubbard did much good for civilization back in May of 1950 when he introduced Dianetics. This was, in my view, certainly an improvement over psychiatry of 1949. I suppose there was then a 'battle of ideas' ... perhaps for some still ongoing today.

It is obvious to me that Ron Hubbard had the better idea in 1950 when he introduced the idea of erasing the engram. A psychiatrist in 1949 got a nobel prize for the idea of doing quite the exact opposite, adding in engrams, specifically with icepick through the eyehole with extreme electric shock producing the painful engram of unconsciousness.


Reference: http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=3772


As you may have noticed, I am simply and quietly communicating my own viewpoint here, and without immersing into heated irrational argument. The next several centuries of future history should be very interesting.



Ron was also working very hard for a long time after 1950. There were the grades, the OT levels, with what Ron himself considered the real "biggie", OT 3. There were also other things such as ethics tech, management tech, study tech, the purif etc. Do you think his later achievements were equally as beneficial for mankind as what he did in 1950.?
 
Top