Well, I'm out now.

Roadrunner

Patron with Honors
I wasn't putting you down, I was simply making an observation. You do come across as someone with Aspergers.

Quite a flawed observation...

Mick Wenlock interpreted " I do not think, I observe." as "People who know nothing and just observe", and you come to me with your Aspergers.

But that's your problem not mine...

RR
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Quite a flawed observation...

Mick Wenlock interpreted " I do not think, I observe." as "People who know nothing and just observe", and you come to me with your Aspergers.

But that's your problem not mine...

RR

Your problem is that you have a flawed 'stable datum' that 'Ron is Right' which serves as the stake in the ground that you run around with your 'chain of certainty'.

That's why you run in circles. Lose the 'stable datum' and you might actually *go* somewhere.

Zinj
 

Snuffy

Patron Meritorious
I plan on posting the disconnection email when I have time because the person who wrote it makes some unwittingly chilling comparisons between Scn and the army, and is totally oblivious to the implications. No time to do it now, but will try to get to it within the next few days.
 

Roadrunner

Patron with Honors
Your problem is that you have a flawed 'stable datum' that 'Ron is Right' which serves as the stake in the ground that you run around with your 'chain of certainty'.

That's why you run in circles. Lose the 'stable datum' and you might actually *go* somewhere.

Zinj

Running in circles does he that does not substantiate claims. My dear fellow, that is not me... :eyeroll:

RR
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Totally agree.



Absolutely agree, I was making reference specifically to lack of empathy and inappropriate indifference as traits - I didn't mention active traits such as negativity or unfairness - you're absolutely right these are not cited as symptoms of Aspergers.

Well, when I said negativity, I meant things they do that are negative. Which would include lack of empathy. It was a blanket term

Thing is, there are a lot of people in this world who lack empathy in given situations. They don't have Asperger's, most of them. I mean, that's pretty much the only symptom you have and it just seems to me that since Asperger's is complex, has a number of symptoms, that it's just not the best comparison.

But then again, I think comparisons are problematic anyway. (Sort of like virtually every half way decent fantasty novel getting compared to Lord of the Rings when, many times, they aren't at all like LOTR. But it's the frame of reference, it's the benchmark, so it gets used.)

Thanks - that's interesting. No offence meant. Just an observation of the scientologists I have been involved with. I was interested to know if people saw it as part of/a symptom of a mindset - Fully accept it may be specific to the people I know. Also fully accept your remark about 'what kind of bug is that' could be interpreted as lacking in empathy (maybe I'm the one with aspergers... shit.... p'raps it's genetic and it was nothing to do with scientology after all......),

I think there are different sorts and varieties of pronounced lack of empathy and that someone who's behaving that way from being in a cult, from doing the good vs evil self serving thing (as in "Oh, I'm so good and he's so bad") - that these just do not resemble Asperger's.

It's bad, for sure, but thing is, when you walk into an Org or Mission or SO installation and really get to be around the people there, although you will see some crappy things, you won't see a bunch of Rainman types running around. Or "Rainman-lite" as I like to call Asperger's.

I think this here might be more a cross section of what you'd see (if you happened to be well entrenched in the scene, like if you were on staff, volunteering, or did a lot of course time and auditing there)

People laughing
Trying to help each other
People screaming at each other
Fear
Joy
Happiness
Sadness
A lot of very harried busy people
And you would see some real abuse.

I've been in ethics handlings, I've been there, and I had some shit happen to me. But there, what I saw was anger and self righteousness- not so much a quasi autistic mien on the part of any of the people.


but like I said, I only have my personal experiences of scientology for reference and in my experience the lack of empathy and a kind of indifference seemed to increase the more the people I knew were involved. They seemed less there (in every repect). At the time I did feel there were similarities to a person I'd met with (and what I know of) Aspergers. I put it down simply to the idea that their mind was so busy with other stuff - that's how it seemed. Also more recently someone has explained to me in more depth scientology belief systems - and it made sense to me how someone following them could be well intentioned but come across as completely uncaring to people that love them/have certain expectations of them outside the 'church'.

I think that whoever explained the belief systems to you had their own slant on it, and wasn't too accurate.

Of course Scn, philosphy-wise isn't perfect, but just as the philosophy or "belief system", it's not something that encourages lack of empathy. Hubbard wrote a lot about having empathy. Yes, he failed to practice it, but fact remains, the actual ology practiced by many Scn'ists in and out of CofS, isn't like you describe.

And before anyone start in with "oh she thinks the "tech" is fine, it's just the current management that's misapplying it and she doesn't know, etc." that's not my stance at all. (though people keep telling me it is) There are some gaping holes in Scn. Particularly "policy". I think those are mainly due to an idea that the organization is more important than the people. This idea has found its way into a number of policies.

But if you take the core and basic ideas of the Scn philosophy and auditing practices empathy is constantly stressed.

The idea of being that cut off from others as a person, being that poorly socialized, of behaving like a "rainman lite" would appall the Scientologists I know.

The core beliefs of Scn are that one's decisions and thoughts about one's experiences are what shapes the person and determines his or her life and that those things can be changed and that a person should be aware of them, rather than having them be unconscious in any way. So in auditing one attempts to face up to one's fears, past experiences and so on and confront them.

Scn also teaches that one is responsible for anything that happens...this would seem radical to many and I'm not trying to discuss the merits or lack of merits in the idea, but here I'm trying to point out that someone who is that concerned about responsibility in all spheres of life- even if he or she doesn't live up to it- is not going to be someone with that disassociation.

The Grades (auditing steps a ways before the OT levels) address (or attempt to) communication, problems of life, facing up to things one did or failed to do that was immoral or unethical, dealing with past upsets and conflics.

As I said, I'm not writing this post to persuade anyone of the merits or efficacy of Scn, but I'm pointing out that the goals of Scn, the things it tries to address would point someone in the opposite direction than these symptoms of Asperger's:

* Not pick up on social cues and lack inborn social skills, such as being able to read others' body language, start or maintain a conversation, and take turns talking.

* Dislike any changes in routines.

* Appear to lack empathy.

* Be unable to recognize subtle differences in speech tone, pitch, and accent that alter the meaning of others’ speech. Thus, the person may not understand a joke or may take a sarcastic comment literally. Likewise, his or her speech may be flat and difficult to understand because it lacks tone, pitch, and accent. Have a formal style of speaking .

* Avoid eye contact. Have unusual facial expressions or postures. Be preoccupied with only one or few interests, which he or she may be very knowledgeable about.


* Talk a lot, usually about a favorite subject. One-sided conversations are common. Internal thoughts are often verbalized. Have delayed motor development, etc.[/QUOTE]

I appreciate your response.
 

mashugana

Patron
Thanks for taking the time to post back on this - it's good. I hope I don't offend you further. I've asked yet more questions. Would appreciate any replies from anyone.

Well, when I said negativity, I meant things they do that are negative. Which would include lack of empathy. It was a blanket term

Thing is, there are a lot of people in this world who lack empathy in given situations. They don't have Asperger's, most of them. I mean, that's pretty much the only symptom you have and it just seems to me that since Asperger's is complex, has a number of symptoms, that it's just not the best comparison.

I don't think I expressed myself well. I see aspergers as an observation, a description; not wholely possative or negative and absolutely not a derogatory term. I agree it's a complex condition that has degrees to it. It can be subtle. A lot of people with aspergers would not fit into any screamingly obvious catagory. I was refering specifically to lack of empathy , inappropriate indifference but was also refering to Aspergers as a whole and had in mind other traits associated with it ( see Gillgerg's below). I wrongly assumed that anyone replying would have the same broad view/ understanding of aspergers.

But then again, I think comparisons are problematic anyway. (Sort of like virtually every half way decent fantasty novel getting compared to Lord of the Rings when, many times, they aren't at all like LOTR. But it's the frame of reference, it's the benchmark, so it gets used.)


I think a comparison is a useful bench mark/reference point from which to discuss an idea.




I think there are different sorts and varieties of pronounced lack of empathy and that someone who's behaving that way from being in a cult, from doing the good vs evil self serving thing (as in "Oh, I'm so good and he's so bad") - that these just do not resemble Asperger's.

It's bad, for sure, but thing is, when you walk into an Org or Mission or SO installation and really get to be around the people there, although you will see some crappy things, you won't see a bunch of Rainman types running around. Or "Rainman-lite" as I like to call Asperger's.

"Rainman lite"?

I really should have clarified that I was using the term Aspergers in an observation and as a reference point- I don't see it as a derogatory term or simplistic.



I think this here might be more a cross section of what you'd see (if you happened to be well entrenched in the scene, like if you were on staff, volunteering, or did a lot of course time and auditing there)

People laughing
Trying to help each other
People screaming at each other
Fear
Joy
Happiness
Sadness
A lot of very harried busy people
And you would see some real abuse.

I've been in ethics handlings, I've been there, and I had some shit happen to me. But there, what I saw was anger and self righteousness- not so much a quasi autistic mien on the part of any of the people.
"Quasi autistic?"


Your account is interesting, thanks for that information and I completely accept what you're saying about your experiences.

The point I'm making is how people who join scientology are possibly seen by people outside the group. A person may be joining in all of the above experiences that you list within scientology. Outside that group they may have people who love them; who they have emotional, time and financial commitments to that they are unable/unwilling to fulfil because the new group they have joined are taking their time, heart, mind, money. To the people outside scientology they could come across as unempathetic to needs and inappropriately disinterested in them and could be seen to be abandoning responsibilty to them with no display of any conscience.

I'm trying to put forward an idea (possibly quite unsuccessfully!) about how a person communicates, their apparent thought processes and their obsessiveness about the group they have joined to the exclusion of other things and how that all might come across to a person who is not joining in that group. I accept it would be entirely different to how they are seen by the people within the new reality they have joined.



I think that whoever explained the belief systems to you had their own slant on it, and wasn't too accurate.

Of course Scn, philosphy-wise isn't perfect, but just as the philosophy or "belief system", it's not something that encourages lack of empathy. Hubbard wrote a lot about having empathy. Yes, he failed to practice it, but fact remains, the actual ology practiced by many Scn'ists in and out of CofS, isn't like you describe.

Yes, but that would be where it all falls down for me, the point at which I found out that it was all put forward by someone who didn't practice it/ showed no evidence of it working. For me that would be like paying for dental work from a dentist with halitosis and ill fitting dentures.

And before anyone start in with "oh she thinks the "tech" is fine, it's just the current management that's misapplying it and she doesn't know, etc." that's not my stance at all. (though people keep telling me it is) There are some gaping holes in Scn. Particularly "policy". I think those are mainly due to an idea that the organization is more important than the people. This idea has found its way into a number of policies.

But if you take the core and basic ideas of the Scn philosophy and auditing practices empathy is constantly stressed.

The idea of being that cut off from others as a person, being that poorly socialized, of behaving like a "rainman lite" would appall the Scientologists I know.


In my experience one of the core aspects of scientology is to cut people off from non-scientologists. Even at a basic starter level as paying public there is a huge emphasis on not dabbling, of spending all your free time being on the course, studying scientology. That simple act is physically cutting people off before you even look at the money and headspace it takes.

The core beliefs of Scn are that one's decisions and thoughts about one's experiences are what shapes the person and determines his or her life and that those things can be changed and that a person should be aware of them, rather than having them be unconscious in any way. So in auditing one attempts to face up to one's fears, past experiences and so on and confront them.



That's fair enough. That's basic accepted psychology - around in various forms and accessable via numerous methods.




Scn also teaches that one is responsible for anything that happens...this would seem radical to many and I'm not trying to discuss the merits or lack of merits in the idea, but here I'm trying to point out that someone who is that concerned about responsibility in all spheres of life- even if he or she doesn't live up to it- is not going to be someone with thatdisassociation.

It's an aspect of scientology that to non-scientologists can come across as uncompassionate, harsh and unempathetic.


And I really do need it explaining. Responsible for:
what?
when?
how?

This is part of scientology I've never quite understood.

When does being totally responsible for everything start?
As a child?
As an adult?
After one's done enough scientology? How much?
What about a bit of scaffolding falling on your head, cancer, earthquakes, tornadoes, night, day - are people totally
responsible for them? How does that work?

Can anyone explain this to me?


The Grades (auditing steps a ways before the OT levels) address (or attempt to) communication, problems of life, facing up to things one did or failed to do that was immoral or unethical, dealing with past upsets and conflics.

Thanks for explaining that about the grades. It's interesting. Who judges what is immoral or unethical? Does the individual decide or the church of scientology?


As I said, I'm not writing this post to persuade anyone of the merits or efficacy of Scn, but I'm pointing out that the goals of Scn, the things it tries to address would point someone in the opposite direction than these symptoms of Asperger's:
.

I appreciate you answering. I think I see your point of view and the goals of scientology as you understand them. I think I understand why you don't agree with my analogy.


Not sure where that list you quoted is from; - I think it's just a small section of the DSM-IV Diagnostic Criteria for Aspergers Disorder. Gillbergs criteria for the disorder is very similar and is as follows:

1.Severe impairment in reciprocal social interaction
(at least two of the following)
(a) inability to interact with peers
(b) lack of desire to interact with peers
(c) lack of appreciation of social cue
(d) socially and emotionally inappropriate behaviour

2.All-absorbing narrow interest
(at least one of the following)
(a) exclusion of other activities
(b) repetitive adherence
(c) more rote than meaning

3.Imposition of routines and interests
(at least one of the following)
(a) on self, in aspects of life
(b) on others


4.Speech and language problems
(at least three of the following)
(a) delayed development
(b) superficially perfect expressive language
(c) formal, pedantic language
(d) odd prosody, peculiar voice characteristics
(e) impairment of comprehension including misinterpretations of literal/implied meanings


5.Non-verbal communication problems
(at least one of the following)
(a) limited use of gestures
(b) clumsy/gauche body language
(c) limited facial expression
(d) inappropriate expression
(e) peculiar, stiff gaze


6.Motor clumsiness: poor performance on neurodevelopmental examination


(All six criteria must be met for confirmation of diagnosis.)
 

Alan Prost

New Member
Building the castle was a long process

Hello to you:
New to this format, and not in fear of anyone or thing, it is my intention
to establish ARC with people especialy in England.
Quite simply, for me, it would be wonderful to sit and talk freely using the
language of Tech ,as I do naturaly, but am unable to do with those not
fluent, for currently in this life I stand alone with this knowledge.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
You stand alone with what knowledge? Tech stuff? Lots of people here who know oodles of tech and can talk the lingo when they want to.
 

Bea Kiddo

Crusader
Hello to you:
New to this format, and not in fear of anyone or thing, it is my intention
to establish ARC with people especialy in England.
Quite simply, for me, it would be wonderful to sit and talk freely using the
language of Tech ,as I do naturaly, but am unable to do with those not
fluent, for currently in this life I stand alone with this knowledge.

Are you tech trained? Cna you give a little history about yourself in that regard? Peace.
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
I plan on posting the disconnection email when I have time because the person who wrote it makes some unwittingly chilling comparisons between Scn and the army, and is totally oblivious to the implications. No time to do it now, but will try to get to it within the next few days.

Snuffy, Did you ever post the notice?
 

GreyLensman

Silver Meritorious Patron
Again, thanks for all your replies. Just to clarify, I didn't get a gang-bang ethics interview (although I've no doubt they happen). The person who did the interview was simply abusive. And he came in from outside at the same time as the WDC guys, I think they appointed him, but he wasn't SO. He had the coldest, most empty eyes I'd ever seen, though. SS Officer-type in a bygone era I reckon. The WDC SRA came 2 days later, after all my horrible misdeeds became public knowledge.

One strategy I'm finding immensely helpful is re-reading Orwell's 1984 after some 20 years. The thoughts of someone living day to day life in the midst of a mind-controlling totalitarian regime match so closely to what I'd caught myself going through as a CoS staffer, and I only realize it as I read, as though Orwell's prose is as-ising the doublethink I enacted on myself. If you haven't looked at it recently, check it out and look at the appendix on Newspeak, then ask yourself what a Scientologist really means when they say things like "get your ethics in".

Phrases like "counter-intention" and "the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics" -- this latter is especially insidious because when you're a part of a 3rd dynamic group like CoS, they claim to handle all the other dynamics, so any choice that does not put CoS first cannot be "greatest good for the greatest number". The logic traps are well-laid into the Newspeak of Scientologese. And I don't think the "tech" of ethics is theoretically valid as long as a situation is evaluated correctly, because the very basis of standard "Golden Age of Tech" is that automatic responses are drilled into you so there is no room left for individual evaluation. Individual evaluation begins to get labelled as "reasonableness", "suppressive reasonableness" or "squirrel". More Newspeak.

.

Gawd. I completely missed the GAT crap except for a brief mention by a good friend still stuck inside.

When I trained as an auditor, the first time through the e-mater drills were very very difficult BECAUSE I WAS ROBOTIC. After several years of sessions, a much better communications cycle as an auditor, and listening to L. Ron Hubbard auditing on the PDC tapes, I redid some of those same drills on a course instead of as a cram, and they were bloody easy - because I was loose and fluid and I knew my stuff well enough to NOT be stiff or predictable or rote.

The stuff sounds simply awful.

Welcome to the outside.
 

GreyLensman

Silver Meritorious Patron
What you received was not Scientology. It was just some people doing as they pleased or because of their own MU's, failures, failed purpose, or something like that. I learned quickly to separate that which people do and what some writings said. I was at a good place, which was Flag Mimeo.

That what you tell sounds all so familiar. Prior to me sharing my information on the Internet I wrote many reports, suggestions etc. Because of the lack of response and not seeing any change I figured that I had no other choice then sharing that what I saw, and the understanding that I had. Not less communication, just more of it to more people.

Most certainly you may cram some MAA. If having good reason you may cram any person within the organization. What one does is keeping one's own space clean and do take the necessary actions. Then, you simply go on with your life.

Scientology is as sane as each of us are.

RR

Horseshit. If you cram the MAA you will end up on the receiving action of either ethics, justice or your own cram actions as conflictingly interpreted policy is rammed down your throat...

More communication results in MORE ethics actions, more sec checks, more justice and more pressure to conform and to give up the crimes and overts and withholds your disagreement stems from.

The idea that communication is welcomed or respected by Scientology as an entity is utter horseshit. The trap is that you are made responsible for communicating about the outnesses that you see and then beaten down for that communication through ethics and justice to handle your disaffection and disagreement. Bait and switch, classic. :angry:
 

GreyLensman

Silver Meritorious Patron
...after (counting, slowly...) 13 years of doubt and irresolution, finally resulting in a clear view of this "Church", I find this mindset just pisses me off.

>Scientology is as sane as each of us are.<

Yet another lie. After watching outpoint after outpoint and justifying it to myself and finding my personal integrity and honour further soiled, I won't do it anymore. When will you be able to actually say the same?
 
You were a slave for them working for free. If a slave escapes from the plantation is he liable to go back and return the chains he wore? More likely they'd attempt to slap bigger mental chains on you if you went back to their lair. Remember the words "Thank God almighty, I'm free at last."
Don't worry about the uniform, consider it a down payment on a future class action lawsuit settlement. Oh and being declared by the COS is a mark of honor to the rest of the non-COS part of mankind. Frame it if you are lucky enough to receive one. And be glad you
took the red pill. (Matrix reference)
 
Last edited:

Hello

Patron
So here goes. Just decided a few days ago. Can't get off the internet after finally allowing myself to look at it. And you know what? I didn't get ill, go insane, or die when I visited these supposedly "evil" sites. I DID find a lot of info they didn't want me to see. And I DID experience a tremendous amout of waking up and relief. And that feeling of "How could I have been so STUPID?"

I haven't told family or friends yet. I'm still getting calls for events, and having discussions with the people who call me.

But I can say I'm definitely out now.

One, two, three, four! I'm not brainwashed anymore!

I'm free now to think whatever thoughts I want. Gone is the cringing fear of mind-rape ethics interviews.

My biggest fear is getting declared. I was in for 8 years, off and on staff, then requested to leave. They wouldn't give me a sec-check, said no one was available to do it, but I was still expected to be on post month after month. So I finally just left. They threatened me with a declare, but I still wouldn't come back. Finally they said they would do the sec-check but that I needed to purchase 25 hrs of auditing as "set-ups". I said no. I haven't heard back yet.

Is getting declared as terrifying as I've been mind-controlled into believing it is? Will I get harassed?

Snuffy

Great job Snuffy
I love your chant
" 1 2 3 4 I'm not brainwashed anymore" <- genius
:hifive:
 

Snuffy

Patron Meritorious
Great job Snuffy
I love your chant
" 1 2 3 4 I'm not brainwashed anymore" <- genius
:hifive:

Thank you, Hello. I've been following your harrowing account. Well done on getting out. Since writing all that, I've been officially declared and recieved my goldenrod. I hope to get Tory Magoo and Mark Bunker to autograph it for me before I laminate it and frame it and hang it on the wall.

It's a fun time to be out, isn't it!? :happydance:
 

loiepoo

Patron
On that, I would add reading some Jung, one of the great minds of the 20th Century and, next to Frued, with whom he worked, probably the most influential psychologist in the history of the discipline. And what's remarkable is that he rejects the materialism of "brain" and is very spiritually aware. I read a lot of him before getting into Scn, then stopped because I didn't feel I was allowed to read a psychology book, much less tell people how good I thought it was. :confused: It has been extremely therapeutic to read him again. Look at something like Man and His Symbols, The Spitit in Man, Art, and Literature, or Memories, Dreams, and Reflections.

I agree, reading Jung, Astrology and Tarot actually helped deprogram me from Scientology. Jung is Brilliant. I was an auditor for a long time in Scn. and as far as I am concerned, auditing very rarely got into the deep stuff of the subconscious mind.
 
Top