Re: Summing up your sunk costs in Scientology
And just as for many their 'total cost' far exceeds any perceived benefit, for others the benefits received far exceeded what they consider to be their 'total costs'.
The reasons for the disparity are many but principle among them are: the amount of time spent involved with the church, the degree of involvement with authoritarian structures within the church, access to scientology services while involved with the church, and the quality & nature of any services received while a member of the church.
The best reports come from those who feel their personal expectations of the services were met and who avoided the abuses of management, either through good fortune or through their own early departure. The worst reports come from those whose needs were unmet and/or were subjected to the worst possible circumstances by church leaders.
Mark A. Baker
Wit all due respect, this seems to me to be a lot like saying nothing. I could never generalize with such apparent certainty and don't see how Mr Baker can. The first paragraph could be said about anything without
saying anything. Sailing or fishing or playing violin for example. Can you really evaluate things in that way. Mostly I can't. Things are too complex.
I knew people who got out right away. They didn't justify their departures on the basis of cost/benefit. They just though it was BS and left. Example: I audited one guy to a huge state elation and feeling he was changed for the better. He quit scn when it all came back. Didn't want to screw around with all the remedies and reasons for relapse. Said scn was 'nothing.'
I knew others who worked around the clock for the cult and suffered great abuse. Some of those--not many it seems--are still in. Some are hubbardite indies. Others are straight up critics who think it was fundamentally a fraud. (Like me.) I don't see any 'disparity' or any useful two category classification. Many people who've never been in are staunch, implacable critics. All the exes and critics have individual stories, but I couldn't generalize without doing a rigorous survey. How can you?
Then there're the questions of 'influence,' social control, social behavior, taboos, social necessities, peer pressure, delusion, trance, belief, misattribution. These are, I think, powerful things and need to be discussed, although I can only speak authoritatively of my own experience. How does one go from being a true believer to being free of the whole thing? How does one come to hold beliefs despite evidence (like one's own actual behavior and that of other people in the cult) that they are false?
Why do some continue to believe the generality 'scientology works' despite endless testimony about real social behavior in the cult? Despite volumes of testimony about hubbard's character. Despite the absence of clears and OTs.
This is not just a case of 'many don't like it but some do, depending on certain experiences." It is, in my view, a case of 'How the hell did such a monstrosity evolve?' and 'what can be done about it.'
John