Scientologists: What, exactly, “works”?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scientologists: What, exactly, “works”?

Posted on February 23, 2013 by Bill from Ask The Scientologistby justbill001

One of the things that Scientologists do that is so very confusing, is their insistence that “Scientology works!”

Even after leaving the Church of Scientology in disgust, a few people continue to believe and insist that Scientology works.  This results in such movements as the “Independent Scientologists”, the “Freezone”, “Ron’s Orgs” and such.

Yet, if you can convince these people to talk openly about it, they must all admit that “Clear”, as promised by L. Ron Hubbard, has never been achieved.  Instead, they may redefine “Clear” from “no longer has a Reactive Mind” to “I once felt really, really good for a short time and attributed it to Scientology”.

If they are being honest, they also will admit that “OT”, as promised by Hubbard, has also never been achieved.  They may redefine “OT” from “cause over matter, energy, space and time” to “I once felt really, really good for a short time and attributed it to an ‘OT’ level”.

In other words, they know that Scientology does not deliver what was explicitly promised by Hubbard — and yet they will insist that “Scientology works!”  How can they say this?

As I see it, these people are confusing “It does something” with “It works”.  It is obvious that, for some people, Scientology processes definitely do something.  Some temporary effect has been created on them.

But that doesn’t mean “Scientology works“.

Let’s use an example outside of Scientology to see the difference between “it works” and “it does something”.  I’ve lived in a number of old houses, and there seems to always be that one light switch you can’t figure out what it does.  Let’s say the switch is labelled “backyard light”, but it doesn’t seem to have anything to do with that.  It doesn’t work.

But what if, sometimes, when you flip that switch, the kitchen faucet started to drip badly?  What if, at other times, you flip that switch and your cell phone reception in the house gets a lot better?  Well, it sure seems that the switch “does something” — but it still doesn’t work.

These are the kind of “results” that Scientology provides — mostly nothing, sometimes something nice and sometimes something not nice.  It is the “sometimes something nice” that Scientologists remember when they say “It works!”

But, what does “it works” actually mean in the real world?  It means something does what it is supposed to do when it’s supposed to.

Scientology is supposed to bring you up “levels” of greater and greater abilities and powers until you reach “OT”, the “Upper End of The Bridge”.  But it doesn’t.  Scientologists at the “Upper End of The Bridge” have no more abilities or powers than non-Scientologists.

Scientologists hate it when this is pointed out but they can’t deny it.  According to Scientology’s mythos, Scientologists will all be leaders in their fields.  The truth is that none of them are.  The irony is that some of those who may have been leaders in their field before Scientology, no longer are.

In the real world, “it works” means that it, whatever “it” is, produces the intended effect reliably, consistently and predictably.

Predictable: The expected results are known. In Scientology, Scientology’s expected results are enshrined in Hubbard’s “Grade Chart”.  It is in this document that Hubbard makes his miraculous promises for Scientology.  This is what Scientology is supposed to do, although, you’d be hard-pressed to say these promised results are expected by Scientologists today.

Consistent: The expected results happens every time it is run.  In Scientology, this doesn’t happen, ever.  The abilities promised by Hubbard simply don’t happen.  The fact that, for some people, something else happens, does not have any meaning here.  In Scientology, the expected, promised results don’t happen.

Reliable: Unwanted effects don’t happen.  While not talked about much, unwanted effects do happen in Scientology.  In Scientology, it could be said that the unexpected “nice” results and the unwanted “bad” results are equally likely to happen. But the most likely result from any Scientology process is: Nothing much.

So, when a Scientologist says “Scientology works!” they are really only saying “I had something nice happen to me once or twice in Scientology.”  Using Hubbard’s definitions, there are no “Releases”, no “Clears” and no “OTs”.  Scientology often “does something” but — it doesn’t work.

Originally posted by Bill at Ask The Scientologist  https://therealaskthescientologist.wordpress.com/2013/02/23/scientologists-what-exactly-works/

The Missing Foundations of Scientology

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Missing Foundations of Scientology

Posted on June 30, 2013 posted by Bill at Ask The Scientologistby justbill001

It is interesting to me that some people who recognize the evil of the Church of Scientology, still believe that Scientology, itself, is good.

I see some folks talking about “rehabilitating Scientology’s and L. Ron Hubbard’s image”.  I see some wannabe Hubbards going on about which parts “Hubbard got right” and how they have “fixed” the mistakes made by Hubbard.

As if Scientology worked.  As if the promises made by Hubbard were real.  As if Scientology wasn’t just a long, long history of failed promises and successful fraud.

But in all this effort to “rehabilitate Scientology’s image” and “make Scientology work”, no one has given the slightest glance at the most important aspects of Scientology.

I am speaking of the foundations of Dianetics and Scientology.  The absolute basic and extremely key assumptions that all the Dianetic and Scientology “tech” is built on.

Let’s take “engrams”, for example.  Sure everyone has had “traumatic experiences” in their lives, that’s a given. But do those events match the very specific and detailed criteria for “engrams” as defined by Hubbard?  That is, does the “mind” make a full and accurate recording of everything that happens during unconsciousness? People running Dianetics believe they have “recalled” the content of such incidents, but has it ever been verified against the actual event?

The only time it was tested, it was a complete failure.  In 1958, a very scientific attempt was made to validate Hubbard’s assertion that “engrams” did exist and did contain a complete record of everything that went on.  A volunteer was rendered unconscious, pain was applied and text was read.  Then Dianeticists tried for months to recover the text — and failed completely and utterly.  They were unable to recover even one tiny part of the text that was read to the unconscious person.  According to that test, “engrams” do not exist.

Validating Hubbard’s basic assertions is absolutely the most important thing any Scientologist could do to “rehabilitate Scientology’s image” or to “improve Scientology’s tech.”  This is the foundation of all of Scientology.

Without “engrams”, there is no “Reactive Mind”. Without the “Reactive Mind” there is no “Clear” and much of the rest of Scientology “technology” falls apart as well.

The concept of “erasing engrams” permeates all of Scientology from the very lowest processes to the most “advanced” levels.  And engrams do not exist according to the only actual, scientific testing ever done.

It is astounding that no True Believer is working to revisit this information.  Despite the obvious importance, no True Believer is even considering testing and validating any of Hubbard’s foundational assertions.  There is nothing more important if one believes in Scientology.

Some believers might ask, “If people are being helped, what difference does it make?”

All the difference in the world. If someone is only imagining they are being helped, that isn’t much actual help, is it?  Also, if you don’t know how Dianetics and Scientology actually help (when it does), you won’t know why it doesn’t work, you won’t know how to make it more effective and you won’t have a clue where to go next.

What is the goal of Scientology processing when there is no “Reactive Mind” and there is no “State of Clear”?  What is the need for “engram processing” when there are no engrams?  What value is there in Scientology when its very foundations have been disproven?

For Scientologists, Dianetics and Scientology “tech” is just a black box, you crank the handle, you repeat the rote words and sometimes, something happens and, once in a while, that “something” is good.

Without “engrams” it is likely Dianetics and Scientology work like Visualization Therapy, self-hypnosis or Guided Imagery, people imagine they are “erasing” a bad incident and obtain some relief.  But no one knows what is going on with Scientology processing because no one looks at Hubbard’s unproven assertions about the basics of Scientology.

This is exactly why it is so accurate to call Scientology a “belief system”.  It is founded solely on a belief that certain assertions are true despite the fact that the only tests ever done showed those assertions to be false.

Bill

Originally posted at Ask The Scientologist

https://therealaskthescientologist.wordpress.com/

Second Lives Of Cult Critics

I realized something the other day while listening to an interview by Chris Shelton. He was interviewing a very knowledgeable cult critic (Joe Szimhart)  who gave a tremendous amount of information on the history of several cults. He said a few things that were significant. First the great depth and amount of information he shared showed that like many cult experts he has spent hundreds of hours studying many subjects to understand cults.

Most cult experts read many books on abuse, psychology, hypnotism, thought reform, narcissists, sociopaths, mass movements, cults and many other subjects. People like Margaret Singer, Jon Atack, Rick Ross, Janja Lalich, Robert Jay Lifton and many others often read hundreds of books and take on studying as a lifelong commitment. It's the normal operating basis for these folks. It's a mindset of taking on learning so much to take on so much because society is sadly lacking established professionals to address cults. If you have cancer you can find a doctor or if your car won't run you can find a mechanic but if you want to take on understanding cults or helping people to recover you almost have to make a curriculum of your own.

And that's been the way it was for a long time. Now careful examination of things like Rick Ross' book Cults Inside Out or the book Recovery From Cults can give a basis with their bibliographies, but a formal established program like that of an attorney or doctor is not yet established.

So, if you want to be a cult expert even if you become a psychologist or psychiatrist or get a degree in history or propaganda analysis or study how language affects thought the education required is far more than even a PhD would grant. I probably have hit just about thirty books read for this effort and in many areas have barely put a toe in the water. I probably have fifty or so books on my immediate short list and many books on some subjects invite further exploration of those subjects. Compared to many cult experts I am just getting started.

So, now I have painted the picture of the cult critic devoting thousands and thousands of hours into learning, whether they get a formal education or not. No problem.

Now here's the catch and part of the situation that makes it clear why very few critics pursue this. The guest that Chris Shelton was interviewing went on to mention that he has a full time job. Cult experts usually have a profession and life independent of cult criticism. Often it is entirely unrelated. Some writers, laborers, accountants, professors and many retired people take on cults and lead entire other lives simultaneously.

It often ends up being the equivalent of working two full-time jobs, or perhaps working a full-time job and being a full-time college student. But one who never graduates, or if he or she does it takes many years. Almost all cult critics rely on other sources of income and have to have a personal drive to get involved and maintain that drive to remain.

Lots of cult critics get burnt out and withdraw. They often have no support or encouragement from their family or profession. Often a critic is an ex cult member and their family is happy they left and denounced the cult and they wish the negative experience and all reminders of it would be left behind. They often don't understand the recovery of the ex cult member is an ongoing process that requires continuing education quite often. And that an ex member may feel a personal inclination or obligation to work against a cult or cults in general or to help people. But that drive may be sated or blunted. When you deal with many cult members and ex members it involves a lot of stress, frankly some accusations and smears and usually little thanks and less pay. Aside from a running joke that SMERSH pays me (the spy organization from James Bond novels) I have yet to make a cent as a cult critic.

So, cult critics end up as a very small number of people who are usually in a couple of types. Most are ex cult members or their immediate family who explore what cults are extensively as part of recovery or to help other people recover. This group includes Jon Atack ex Scientologist,  A second group is academics who study influence or another subject and end up discovering what cults are and do. This group includes Margaret Singer and Robert Jay Lifton. There is a combination type that includes ex Moonie Steve Hassan who got a degree as a licensed mental health counselor and Daniel Shaw who was in a yoga cult and became a psychotherapist. Both did a lot of research on cults as well.

These are the routes most often taken. The academic one sometimes has financial and social support, not always and the ex member or relative one often has little or no social support. In a few areas anti cult groups meet but in most places this never occurs.

Honestly the internet acts to provide support and coordination for cult critics. A critic in Buffalo New York can post an article about Scientology and have readers from all across America and Russia, the United Kingdom, South Africa, China, Colombia, Thailand, Australia, Kenya, India, Ireland. Canada and many other countries read the article. And once the post is up it can be viewed for years.

And feedback can help a cult critic to learn what messages are better received or understood, as well as which details best educate audiences. Not to mention what people actually are curious about or upset or concerned about.

So, when you deal with a cult critic who is organizing a conference or writing a post please keep in mind they are usually doing a full-time job to learn about cults, to write about cults, to help people leave and recover from cults, to find people who want help and information on cults and to engage them AND living a full life with a job in addition to their cult criticism. Now, this doesn't make critics into infallible saints or martyrs. They are flawed and imperfect people to be sure. But they are usually giving a lot to even enter the fray as a cult critic and leading a second life as well.

The second lives of critics are mixed blessings to be sure. They can provide meaning and purpose for themselves through researching cults and how to help people recover from cults. And to a degree a peer group, but being a critic comes with distinct liabilities.

For starters a critic can gain free enemies and critics of their own in response to any communication they put forth. And that warrants study on its own.

Another issue is the possible avoidance or neglect of other areas in the life of the critic. They can always act like learning or helping someone or exposing the crimes of cults is more important than other issues. They often have problems getting a good balance in their lives and being objective about both lives. Sometimes in ex Scientologists in particular they fall into a trap of thinking their own interpretation of Scientology is "the only true and accurate one". And the only way to help others correctly.

So this can unfortunately lead to a continuance of narcissism or other negative traits which cult members bring with them from the cult. Humility and compassion are paramount to recovery but can be impeded by feelings of superior competence or authority.

A critic needs to learn that even if they know a dozen or a hundred or a thousand ideas relevant to cults or a particular cult like Scientology or how to dissect Scientology or recover from it they are still just a person with at best a bit more information than they had before.

No matter how much you learn or recover from Scientology or even help others it doesn't change some facts. Now to be clear I don't want to discourage any of these things and in fact very strongly want to encourage them BUT they need to be kept in perspective.

Pride shouldn't reach arrogance, or justify disdain or narcissism to any degree. We all are imperfect, flawed, to some degree gullible and hold incorrect beliefs no matter what we do to overcome our nature. Or how much we learn about cults or anything else.

I want to encourage people far, far more to learn about subjects including cults and particularly for Scientologists for recovery and people who have a persistent passion for helping others to escape cultic influence. I feel the effort brings real help to people and can genuinely help them to greatly improve their lives.

But keep in perspective who you are, what you are doing and keep in mind that it's a lot to take on two lives,  I don't know anyone who's figured out how to perfectly handle one yet.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory In Scientology

Here's an entire series of posts on the book A Theory Of Cognitive Dissonance by Leon Festinger. The series takes the ideas in Leon Festinger's essential book and explores the twenty five years I spent in Scientology to show how cognitive dissonance occurs in Scientology.


Scientology Building The Prison Of The Mind Part 1
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/201...

Part 2
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/201...

Part 3
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/201...

Part 4
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/201...

Part 5
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/201...

Part 6
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/201...

Part 7 
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/201...

Part 8 
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/201...

Part 9
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/201...

Part 10
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/201...

Part 11
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/201...