Scientology Building The Prison Of The Mind Part 9 Group Priorities

 





In this post like all others in the Building the Prison of the Mind series I will consult and quote Leon Festinger's book A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance and framing my twenty five years in Scientology with this information.

Festinger in the chapter Role of Social Support: Theory disclosed an idea that dissonance in individuals within groups would influence what issues and topics are brought up in social interactions and thus become relevant issues to groups. I am slightly paraphrasing his ideas.

But it is quite important as Scientologists have dissonance over aspects of observable reality that contradicts Scientology doctrine. The abilities Hubbard promises never materialize and the organization is in fact not ethical, doesn't treat staff or Sea Org members well, and is in fact extremely abusive.

To negate the dissonance between the beliefs and observations the group members are compelled to act like bulldogs in trying to get agreement both within the cult and with any outsiders the group members interact with. They want to create more agreement with their beliefs and since observable evidence cannot be made more believers can be.

When there is significant or moderate dissonance, even strong dissonance but not yet maximum or explosive level dissonance, a person can be compelled to seek consonant elements, meaning ideas and opinions that agree with their own. For Scientologists it means they are strongly inclined to seek agreement from other Scientologists on issues they have dissonance on, including trying to resolve confusion on Scientology doctrine by studying more to gain greater understanding of Scientology.

So they are stuck in a rigged game, until they realize the assumptions regarding Hubbard's infallibility and messianic status and his technology could be incorrect.

This compulsion to only find agreement while in the Goldilocks range of dissonance, meaning strong enough to push one to avoid disagreeing information and to seek agreement and not the very strongest dissonance which itself cannot be relieved by more agreement but which is relieved by entirely changing one's beliefs and behaviors, is problematic for a special group of Scientologists.

People who are expelled via suppressive person declares or otherwise separated from the cult have an interesting problem: they as independent Scientologists or freezoners are simultaneously separated from others who would support their beliefs, thereby lessening the dissonance and often stuck only in contact with others outside the main cult.

 So what do they do ? Some close ranks and form extremely small, closed off cells of mini cults. They can be extremely antagonistic to outsiders as they realize the lies regarding Scientology's growth and size and effectiveness socially have no merit. They are stuck in a no man's land of dissonance without relief. Some of them end up interacting with exes and critics and viciously lash out as they are incredibly uncomfortable and blame critics for not seeing their beliefs as true.

 They don't merely disagree, they are disgusted by the presence of educated disagreement - meaning people like exes and critics who have learned about Scientology in great depth. To a lone independent Scientologist a person entirely unfamiliar with Scientology merely is ignorant, and that excuse is sufficient to curb dissonance. They can think Scientology is a broad subject that requires extensive study and feel superior to the vast majority of people. Inaccuracies in the South Park story and tabloids serve to reduce dissonance, as Scientologists smugly can point them out.

The issue of the ex who was in for years or decades and understands Scientology concepts and can discuss them in Hubbard's language and has used his methods who entirely rejects Scientology is quite unacceptable to the lone independent. They feel compelled to correct us, to get our agreement and cooperation. Plainly the dissonance drives them to hate us and attack as they have access to critics and don't understand how we can both understand and reject Scientology.

Similarly with well informed critics who were never in Scientology independent Scientologists can go berserk trying to deny their accuracy and refute their claims. The more accurate and well informed a "never in" is who consistently disagrees with Hubbard and his technology the more it infuriates independent Scientologists. So naturally they often cannot stand Tony Ortega, likely the best and most well informed journalist regarding Scientology alive today. He has peers in Mark Ebner, Paulette Cooper, Mark Bunker and a few others but they are unfortunately a tiny minority, perhaps a couple dozen in the entire world .

So, as there are very few good, accurate, well informed journalists they become a focused in on target, but like the exes who resolutely reject Scientology and Hubbard,  Tony Ortega and a handful of others persist undaunted in presenting the information they find, criticism be damned.