Compilation On Abuse and Attitudes for Ex Scientologists

These posts have a collection

Regarding several issues brought up in the comments at the Underground Bunker recently I have put together a collection of posts on the topic of the changes an ex Scientologist might go through and the acceptance of responsibility and acceptance of abuse for oneself and others.

The Sour Knight

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

After The Cult Part 1 Scientology Acceptance and Denial

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

Silence Is Consent

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

Roots and Chains

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

Those Who Follow Part 1

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

Why Bother Dissecting Scientology ? 2

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

A Million Years In Hell

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

Scientology's Kryptonite 2 The Fallacies of Scientology

Scientology's Kryptonite 2 Fallacies of Scientology

In discussing Scientology and other subjects it quickly becomes clear that there are different ways to communicate with people. Some are more logical and effective at using and encouraging reason. 

I noticed certain methods of thinking and persuasion are encouraged in Scientology and even in people outside Scientology at times.

The bad news is the harm they do -  which is significant. The good news is that by exposing and examination of them their effects can possibly be lessened. 

The same things that are not helpful keep getting said and done. Don't get me wrong -  if people want to argue with no advancing of understanding or use of organized methods of analysis of thought and claims they are free to do so. Knock yourself out.

But if they talk to me and use logical fallacies or other examples of less than perfect reason I can point it out. Just like they can with me.

That is something Scientologists are not allowed to do or encouraged to ever do with Scientology doctrine. That is part of why Scientology is a cult. No opposing or dissenting opinions are allowed and no open discourse as Socratic debate or reasoned debate is allowed. 

To address this issue I am going to quote and discuss several references. It will be spread out over several blog posts and likely to be extensive. That is because the methods to overcome poor reason are the opposite of Scientology and usually not taught in most schools. They are known and many were established long ago but just not usually in most curriculum.

I will start with a series of quotes from Glen Whitman at his blog. They are appropriate and clearly written for laymen with no prior education in the subject. 

Begin Quotes by Glen Whitman

This is a guide to using logical fallacies in debate. And when I say "using," I don't mean just pointing them out when opposing debaters commit them -- I mean deliberately committing them oneself, or finding ways to transform fallacious arguments into perfectly good ones.

Debate is, fortunately or not, an exercise in persuasion, wit, and rhetoric, not just logic. In a debate format that limits each debater's speaking time, it is simply not reasonable to expect every proposition or conclusion to follow precisely and rigorously from a clear set of premises stated at the outset. Instead, debaters have to bring together various facts, insights, and values that others share or can be persuaded to accept, and then show that those ideas lead more or less plausibly to a conclusion.

Logic is a useful tool in this process, but it is not the only tool -- after all, "plausibility" is a fairly subjective matter that does not follow strict logical rules. Ultimately, the judge in a debate round has to decide which side's position is more plausible in light of the arguments given -- and the judge is required to pick one of those sides, even if logic alone dictates that "we do not know" is the answer to the question at hand.

Besides, let's be honest: debate is not just about finding truth, it's also about winning. If you think a fallacious argument can slide by and persuade the judge to vote for you, you're going to make it, right? The trick is not getting caught.

So why learn logical fallacies at all?

I can think of a couple of good reasons. First, it makes you look smart. If you can not only show that the opposition has made an error in reasoning, but you can give that error a name as well (in Latin!), it shows that you can think on your feet and that you understand the opposition's argument possibly better than they do.


Second, and maybe more importantly, pointing out a logical fallacy is a way of removing an argument from the debate rather than just weakening it. Much of the time, a debater will respond to an argument by simply stating a counterargument showing why the original argument is not terribly significant in comparison to other concerns, or shouldn't be taken seriously, or whatever. That kind of response is fine, except that the original argument still remains in the debate, albeit in a less persuasive form, and the opposition is free to mount a rhetorical offensive saying why it's important after all. On the other hand, if you can show that the original argument actually commits a logical fallacy, you put the opposition in the position of justifying why their original argument should be considered at all. If they can't come up with a darn good reason, then the argument is actually removed from the round.

Logic as a form of rhetoric

Unfortunately, the account I have just given is a bit idealized. Not every judge will immediately recognize the importance of the logical fallacy you've pointed out in your opposition's argument. Even if a logician would immediately accept the accuracy of your point, in a debate round it's the judge that counts.


It is therefore not enough simply to point out a logical fallacy and move on; there is an art to pointing out logical fallacies in your opposition's arguments. Here are a few strategies I've found useful in pointing out logical fallacies in an effective manner:

• State the name of the logical fallacy, preferably in both Latin and English, and make sure you use the phrase "logical fallacy." Why? Because it is important to impress on everyone that this is no mere counterargument you are making, nor are you just labelling the opposition's viewpoint as "fallacious" for rhetorical effect. Stating the fallacy's Latin name helps, because some people just aren't sure something's a fallacy unless Aristotle or some other authority called it one. Say something like, "The opposition points out that the voters supported X by a wide margin in last year's referendum. But this is just the logical fallacy ofargumentum ad populum, appeal to public opinion!"
• Tell everybody what the fallacy means and why it is wrong. But be careful -- you have to do this without sounding pedantic. You should state the fallacy's meaning as though you are reiterating what you assume your intelligent judge already knows. To continue the example above, say, "It doesn't matter how many people agree with you, that doesn't mean it's necessarily right." There, now you've defined for everyone what's fallacious about argumentum ad populum.
• Give a really obvious example of why the fallacy is incorrect. Preferably, the example should also be an unfavorable analogy for the opposition's proposal. Thus: "Last century, the majority of people in some states thought slavery was acceptable, but that didn't make it so!"
• Finally, point out why the logical fallacy matters to the debate round. "This fallacious argument should be thrown out of the debate. And that means that the opposition's only remaining argument for X is...."

Committing your very own logical fallacies

In general, of course, it's a good idea to avoid logical fallacies if at all possible, because a good debater will almost always catch you. It is especially important to avoid obvious logical fallacies like the one above (argumentum ad populum), because they are vulnerable to such powerful (and persuasive) refutations. But sometimes, a logical fallacy -- or at least an unjustified logical leap -- is unavoidable. And there are some types of argument that are listed as logical fallacies in logic textbooks, but that are perfectly acceptable in the context of the rules of debate. The most important guideline for committing such fallacies yourself is to know when you are doing it, and to be prepared to justify yourself later if the opposition tries to call you down for it. For examples of logical fallacies that can sometimes be acceptable in the context of debate, see ad ignorantiam, ad logicam, complex question, slippery slope, straw man, and tu quoque in the list below. 

From Glen Whitman Associate Professor of Economics California State University, Northridge
End quote

Someone could say "I don't care about fallacies I talk and think how I like." Fine, just like you have that freedom I also have the freedom to object to or point out fallacies. If someone really does not like it they can ask me to not talk to them. 

I in the process of tearing apart Scientology doctrine after leaving the cult developed certain habits. One is looking for and pointing out logical fallacies in Hubbard's doctrine and then my own words and thoughts and those of others. It's not perfect or error free, but it becomes a habit after a while.

Then pointing it out to others becomes a natural habit too. So, it isn't a personal attack but can be treated as one. 

This first post just introduced the subject and a tiny bit on why it's worth learning what fallacies are and that in my opinion a person that knows fallacies and other elements of critical thinking well is extremely unlikely to be duped by Scientology.

It's built on fallacies. But being able to dissect them and expose them can remove the influence of Scientology and expose the incompetence of Ron Hubbard.

It can also help a dedicated student to improve their reason in general and not just for arguments or debate. 

The person most people influence the most is themselves. By thinking things and not understanding aspects of them they reinforce some ideas and rule out others, but with less than perfect logic and reason. 

By seeing neutral examples of fallacies in others a person can learn which fallacies they have been using too. 

Fallacies aren't just intentionally used persuasion tools of language - they are ways of thinking that use poor reason or errors in logic to poorly support beliefs. Those beliefs support behaviors and emotions too. 

If you do something, feel something and believe something it's good to understand why and if errors or bad habits affect those things then hopefully reason can expose them. To me that is worth the effort to learn. 

Glen Whitman link to his blog below

Return to main debate page.
Return to cover page.




All quotes :

From Glen Whitman

Associate Professor of Economics

California State University, Northridge

glen.whitman-AT-csun.edu

18111 Nordhoff St.

Northridge, CA 91330-8374

818-677-4542 (office)

Scientology's Kryptonite

In dealing with Scientologists and cult apologists I have found they usually are devoted to certain tactics and undone by others.

There's a reason for that in the cult and what draws people to it and keeps them in it once they have joined.

“If a doctrine is not unintelligible, it has to be vague; and if neither unintelligible nor vague, it has to be unverifiable.” 
― Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements

Here's a Quote on cults by Margaret Singer from her book Cults In Our Midst.

The more complicated and filled with contradictions the new system is and the more difficult it is to learn, the more effective the conversion process will be. ( page 67 ) Margaret Singer Cults In Our Midst 
All quotes in blue from Margaret Singer and her book Cults In Our Midst


There's another aspect of Scientology that compounds this effect - loaded language.

Robert Jay Lifton described it

Loading the Language.  The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand.  This jargon consists of thought-terminating cliches, which serve to alter members' thought processes to conform to the group's way of thinking. Robert Jay Lifton The Eight Criteria For Thought Reform from Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism

Margaret Singer had definite ideas on this too. 


You affirm that you accept and understand the ideology by beginning to talk in the simple catchphrases particular to the group. This "communication" has no foundation since, in reality, you have little understanding of the system beyond the catchphrases. ( page 69)

This is particularly relevant to Scientology as Hubbard used many thousands of new words. Many of which are the opposite of their original meaning or used to state something the exact opposite of the truth to hide Hubbard's intentions and crimes. He used phrases twisted and turned to fool people. Many of his terms lack clear meaning because he uses far too many new terms with reference to one another and multiple contradictory definitions. The amount of terms and definitions to attempt to learn and coordinate is simply overwhelming and often absorbs so much of the cult member's attention that clear understanding and thought are severely inhibited.


 Loading the language. As members continue to formulate their ideas in the group's jargon, this language serves the purpose of constricting members' thinking and shutting down critical thinking abilities. At first, translating from their native tongue into "groupspeak" forces members to censor, edit, and slow down spontaneous bursts of criticism or oppositional ideas. ( page 70)

Of all cult methods this may be the one Hubbard focused on the most. With his extensive new language drummed into his victims' minds through extreme repetition. The beliefs within the language replace the Scientologists' own. And often nearly entirely replace critical thinking.

Getting  almost complete control over cultists' minds is one of the main intentions Hubbard had in his chosen methods.

By continuosly adding new terms and concepts and redefining old ones with explicitly contradictory definitions Hubbard tried to perpetually maintain the overwhelming confusion cult members usually experience when first joining a cult . This is compounded by Scientology's extensive decades long indoctrination process. It keeps the translation process ongoing rather than temporary. This helps to heighten confusion, anxiety and suggestibility.


 One international group, for example, has dictionaries for members to use. In one of these dictionaries, criticism is defined as "justification for having done an overt." Then one looks up overt and the dictionary states: "overt act: an overt act is not just injuring someone or something; an overt act is an act of omission or commission which does the least good for the least number of dynamics or the most harm to the greatest number of dynamics." Then the definition of dynamics says: There could be said to be eight urges in life...." And so, one can search from term to term trying to learn this new language.  (page 70 )

Obviously to any veteran Scientologist this refers to Scientology and Hubbard's methods of defining new terms with mountains of others in never ending chains of words to look up.

Here's a bit more from Robert Jay Lifton and his book:

Loading the Language:

The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. 

These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis. In [Chinese Communist] thought reform, for instance, the phrase "bourgeois mentality" is used to encompass and critically dismiss ordinarily troublesome concerns like the quest for individual expression, the exploration of alternative ideas, and the search for perspective and balance in political judgments. 

And in addition to their function as interpretive shortcuts, these cliches become what Richard Weaver has called "ultimate terms" : either "god terms," representative of ultimate good; or "devil terms," representative of ultimate evil. In [Chinese Communist] thought reform, "progress," "progressive," "liberation," "proletarian standpoints" and "the dialectic of history" fall into the former category; "capitalist," "imperialist," "exploiting classes," and "bourgeois" (mentality, liberalism, morality, superstition, greed) of course fall into the latter. 

Totalist language then, is repetitiously centered on all-encompassing jargon, prematurely abstract, highly categorical, relentlessly judging, and to anyone but its most devoted advocate, deadly dull: in Lionel Trilling's phrase, "the language of nonthought."

End quote Robert Jay Lifton

So in the Scientology cult vague, unintelligible and unverifiable doctrine is the norm. It's built on vague and intentionally confusing terms and phrases that limit and constrict thought. The language itself makes understanding Scientology quite difficult. If taken as literally true and representing reality itself Scientology language makes life confounding and full of twists and turns of complexity and never ending contradictions. 

I have written about that in many other posts and it's worthy of several books in its own right.

So, once it is established that Scientology relies on limiting, confusing, misdirecting and shutting down good presentation and especially evaluation and consideration of ideas both within Scientology itself and everything else it interacts with that prompts an obvious question -As the Scientology cult sees all life as under its authority and the Scientology doctrine is literally described as senior to life itself that includes everything- the question is what approach or perspective is capable of neutralizing or counteracting the "Scientological" way of thinking ?

The answer is simply to reverse the actions that are used in Scientology. There are many to address.

A start is to find how you get the outcome of claims that are clear and intelligible and verifiable or falsifiable. It includes using language that opens up without limiting thought. 

It involves being careful to examine ideas and claims without errors in reason and judgment. 

A great opposite to Scientology is critical thinking. That isn't just being critical or trying to seem smart. 

Below is a short quote on the intellectual standards of critical thinking. It gives a beginning guide to some of the concepts. You can easily see they are the opposite of the components making Scientology.

Unfortunately, most of the time we don’t think well. We tend to favor decisions and ideas that favor us, put our own group over other groups. We are…ego-centric and socio-centric. So, we need to force ourselves to look at things the way they truly are. So, to assess the quality of our thinking, we use theIntellectual Standards.

A standard is a measure of how good something is. The ancient Romans used symbols on the top of long poles to show the troops where they should stand and which way to face. It brought order to a crazy and chaotic battlefield. In much the same way, we use standards in thinking to make sure that hold our feet to the fire, to make sure that what we say and do is actually right.

There are nine Intellectual Standards we use to assess thinking: Clarity,Accuracy, Precision, Relevance, Depth, Breadth, Logic, Significance, and Fairness. Let’s check them out one-by-one.

Clarity forces the thinking to be explained well so that it is easy to understand. When thinking is easy to follow, it has Clarity.

Accuracy makes sure that all information is correct and free from error. If the thinking is reliable, then it has Accuracy.

Precision goes one step further than Accuracy. It demands that the words and data used are exact. If no more details could be added, then it has Precision.

Relevance means that everything included is important, that each part makes a difference. If something is focused on what needs to be said, there is Relevance.

Depth makes the argument thorough. It forces us to explore the complexities. If an argument includes all the nuances necessary to make the point, it has Depth.

Breadth demands that additional viewpoints are taken into account. Are all perspectives considered? When all sides of an argument are discussed, then we find Breadth.

Logical means that an argument is reasonable, the thinking is consistent and the conclusions follow from the evidence. When something makes sense step-by-step, then it is Logical.

Significance compels us to include the most important ideas. We don’t want to leave out crucial facts that would help to make a point. When everything that is essential is included, then we find Significance.

Fairness means that the argument is balanced and free from bias. It pushes us to be impartial and evenhanded toward other positions. When an argument is objective, there is Fairness.

There are more Intellectual Standards, but if you use these nine to assess thinking, then you’re on your way to thinking like a pro.

End quote

From the elements of thought - one by one

That is really great way to counter Scientology or any poor reason generally. Other tools are needed like open exchange of ideas. 

John Stuart Mill wrote in On Liberty

"There must be discussion to show how experience is to be interpreted. Wrong opinions and practices gradually yield to fact and argument; but facts and arguments, to produce any effect on the mind, must be brought before it. Very few facts are able to tell their own story, without comments to bring out their meaning. The whole strength and value, then, of human judgment depending on the one property, that it can be set right when it is wrong, reliance can be placed on it only when the means of setting it right are kept constantly at hand. In the case of any person whose judgement is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so? Because he has kept his mind open to criticism of his opinions and conduct.” End quote

 

Here are relevant posts :

On language in Scientology

Propaganda By Reversal Of Meaning In Scientology

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/03/p...ng-in.html?m=0

The Secret Of Scientology Part 1 Control Via Contradiction

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/01/t...art-1.html?m=0

Insidious Enslavement: Study Technology
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/01/i...ology.html?m=0

Basic Introduction To Hypnosis in Scientology

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/01/b...is-in.html?m=0

Pissed It's Not Your Fault !!!

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/01/p...fault.html?m=0

Burning Down Hell - How Commands Are Hidden, Varied And Repeated To Control You As Hypnotic Implants

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/02/m...-hell.html?m=0

Why Hubbard Never Claimed OT Feats And The Rock Bottom Basis Of Scientology

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/02/m...never.html?m=0

Devil's Advocate - Scientology Watchers - Horny Housewives !

I recently heard a comment that reminded me of a few ideas and I was able to put them all together for a kind of thought exercise or example of something some people might find interesting or educational or just goofy.

An ex Scientologist that was raised in the cult was attributed with saying something. I won't use her name for a few reasons. First I didn't personally witness her saying or posting it online, so I don't know if she said it, or if she something that was misquoted. It's kind of unfair to quote her by name that way.

Also, I don't know how she said it. If it was in a private conversation and a confident was broken in it being posted online then I don't want to add to that. So, I will use a comment and not a name.

The comment was along the lines of " Most never in Scientology watchers are lonely housewives that NEED TO GET LAID and don't know what they are talking about when it comes to Scientology..."

Now, I personally don't agree with that statement. I must admit it is somewhat humorous, but not accurate in my opinion. But, I don't like rejecting everything on instinct or fully believing things that way either. It's a bad habit and one I had far too much of while I was in Scientology. I honestly think it helped me stay in for many, many years long after I should have left.

Here's a short quote from John Stuart Mill that is relevant.

"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion" John Stuart Mill On Liberty

So, I try to play devil's advocate and sometimes if I consider an idea wrong instantly or as an important foundation for other ideas that I accept then just to be careful and considerate I try to build an argument FOR the idea as a claim. I try to think if it's true or part true, what does it mean ? What are the consequences of it being true ? What is the best evidence for it ? 

It's a habit that sometimes leads to changing my mind on something, or going from sure to uncertain. But a doubt based on good reason is better to me than certainty based on poor reason to me. 

Naturally, since leaving Scientology I have far more doubts and more uncertainty than I did while a devoted Scientologist. I consider it an improvement. 

So, to follow through on the "horny housewife" hypothesis let's see what it would mean. And look for supporting evidence. 

I found a quote from a historic book on mass movements: 
“A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business. 

This minding of other people's business expresses itself in gossip, snooping and meddling, and also in feverish interest in communal, national, and racial affairs. In running away from ourselves we either fall on our neighbor's shoulder or fly at his throat. 2.10.” 
― Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements

Okay, so one could think the alleged bored and unsatisfied housewife hypothesis has a shred of evidence. The idea that their business isn't worth minding, so they mind the business of Scientologists and ex Scientologists. It's quite far fetched to me, but an argument for it could be built.

Now, recalling the antics OSA has pulled in interfering in the personal lives of Scientologists and critics leads to an interesting possibility.

Say OSA picks up on the comments and latches onto it as a big solution. OSA has long known that ex Scientologists need support from the larger world to be effective at warning people or presenting any serious threat or obstacles for Scientology.

Without larger social support ex Scientologists can't defeat Scientology in virtually any situation.

So remove the social support and ex Scientologists are effectively neutralized. If OSA believed the Scientology watchers from outside the cult and ex Scientologists are bored and horny housewives who look for something to be interested in then they could follow past practices and play their usual fair games.

They could blackmail, I mean assign ethics programs for , attractive male Scientologists trying to avoid getting SP declared and require them to seduce the women watching Scientology, thereby giving them plenty of business of their own to mind !

And if that's not enough, they could of course gather evidence against the wives and blackmail, er persuade, them !

That sounds like about how Scientology would handle that situation. Now, I still am not convinced of that...unproven scenario. But I just thought carrying it out to it's absurd conclusion would illustrate that it's not likely and that the Scientology cult would handle it in a highly immoral and criminal manner if it even seemed possible, because that's what they do.

Sorry to anyone that hoped for lurid details of torrid affairs, that's a bit beyond my own skills at this point, but you are free to use your imagination if you like. The internet has plenty of resources for that type of thing.

It's just a goofy and preposterous story to illustrate a few things. OSA pulled off absurd and half assed operations for decades and still does to protect Scientology and destroy their enemies.

An idea, even an unlikely one, deserves being looked at from both sides, or more, before being ruled out. Even then it could be true but just not recognized.

That skepticism and caution could help people to double check on everything in Scientology. Many people could leave and weigh the evidence for and against Scientology with independent thinking and critical analysis.

Many would reject it for a variety of reasons including a lack of scientific evidence and strong evidence that Scientology harms families and deceives its own members. But that's just one example. We all can be careful to weigh evidence for and against ideas, especially important ones.

Scientology Damnation in the Details

 

 


Recently someone I consider a cult expert advised to not get lost in the weeds regarding Scientology. But there's an important reason why a person may need to understand crucial details on how Scientology or any influence works: to open their closed mind. I was unwilling to see Scientology as ineffective for decades because the specific method that was used to excite and convince me was one I only saw in the terms Ron Hubbard himself used to define it. That detail was deadly for my mind. It ended good reason regarding Scientology.


I feel something is crucial though regarding details: as a a Scientologist I had the mystical manipulation Lifton described in his eight criteria for thought reform.

Mystical Manipulation. There is manipulation of experiences that appear spontaneous but in fact were planned and orchestrated by the group or its leaders in order to demonstrate divine authority or spiritual advancement or some special gift or talent that will then allow the leader to reinterpret events, scripture, and experiences as he or she wishes. From Robert Jay Lifton's eight criteria for thought reform

I had undergone the euphoric trance states in Scientology indoctrination through the contradictions and heightened anxiety Hubbard intentionally created. He set up his word clearing to induce a state that is highly receptive to suggestions.

He has a student read his materials and listen to lectures. The student takes in hundreds of new Scientology terms, obscure English words and phrases. It's done in an environment where a course supervisor can do spot checks on ANY words studied in the materials for an instant immediate recitation of a definition for the word exactly as used by Hubbard. It has to have no hesitation, no uncertainty, no confusion or doubt. The student must be able to instantly explain the term, give examples of it and make sentences if asked.

If they flunk they must go back and restudy EVERYTHING from the point the word first appeared. It could be a dozen or TWO HUNDRED pages back. This embarrassing setback hanging over a student like the sword of Damocles creates a haunted look in students. It's anxiety.

Hubbard knew a person with high anxiety is more suggestible. He also knew confusion is a method of hypnotic induction. He has a student read a sentence or paragraph. The student is certain they understand the words. But they feel blank, confused or not there. They know from Scientology study technology doctrine that those phenomena indicate a misunderstood word exists ALWAYS.

They have such profound confusion from the contradictions and anxiety that they experience cognitive dissonance. It's unpleasant and confusing and creates hesitation and mental blankness.

In that moment of blankness Hubbard taught them to find a word to take in the definitions for. It's sometimes an English word, which the student takes in but sometimes a Scientology term.

By talking his or her mind off the confusion it is temporarily alleviated. It feels better. They brighten up as Hubbard described. It's not due to an actual benefit but instead from merely taking attention off the confusion itself.

This process involves a student of Scientology indoctrination in feeling good then bad then better then in a euphoric trance as submission to Hubbard's authority replaces critical thinking and independent judgment.

It's a very convincing experience when framed entirely in Hubbard's loaded language to evaluate it. You honestly feel like you are becoming smarter, when you unquestionably accept Hubbard's explanation.

You actually can rattle off hundreds or thousands of definitions for words and learn their derivations and can tell people the meaning of obscure and unusual things. You can tell people the derivations of the days of the week and hundreds of other trivial facts.

Until I realized that the experiences in indoctrination were constructed from covert hypnosis and cognitive restructuring I was immune to criticism of Scientology because the mystical manipulation made mundane psychological manipulation and hypnosis seem miraculous.

I went into such specific details on this because until I saw that particular weed choking the life out of me with thought stopping and reduction of critical and independent thinking I was unable to see or comprehend the bigger picture.

Scientology doesn't seduce people with the whole, it takes them on a series of steps and those twists and turns of good intentions are the road to damnation and enslavement.

Many Scientologists are deceived by auditing and its ability to reframe imagination as experience. It bit by bit gets victims to lessen critical thinking skills and independent judgment. They come to be dependent on an auditor and Hubbard's claims.

They don't understand hypnosis or the euphoric trances it provides. For many the experiences in auditing and indoctrination serve as proof Scientology works.

It certainly does something, but not at all what Hubbard claimed.

You as a non cult member may never need to dissect the process of cult indoctrination down to the smallest steps but unfortunately some ex cult members must to spot exactly what lies bind them into their prison.

To many cult members the magic itself must be exposed to let them stop being in awe. Then they can look behind the curtain and see Ron Hubbard as the emperor without a stitch of cloth. That view without deception or bias usually is startling enough.

Hubbard had definite ideas on this:


Any time anybody gets enough altitude he can be called a hypnotic operator, and what he says will act as hypnotic suggestion. Hypnotism is a difference in levels of altitude…if the operator can heighten his own altitude with regard to the subject…he doesn’t have to put the subject to sleep. What he says will still react as a hypnotic suggestion….With parity, such as occurs between acquaintances, friends, fellow students and so on, there is no hypnotic suggestion” (Education and Dianetics, 11 November 1950, Research and Discovery, volume 4). Ron HubbardSource Jon Atack 

So, back in 1950 Hubbard saw altitude, also called authority or prestige or transference, as the key to hypnosis and NOT formal induction.  Interesting. So the student could take in what a source provides as hypnotic suggestions and be obedient if groggy, according to Hubbard if altitude has been achieved. 

Hubbard had other specific ideas:

Good Word Clearing is a system of backtracking. You have to look earlier than the point where the student became dull or confused and you’ll find that there’s a word that he doesn’t understand somewhere before the trouble started. If he doesn’t brighten up when the word is found and cleared, there will be a misunderstood word even before that one.

This will be very clear to you if you understand that if it is not resolving, the thing the student is apparently having trouble with is not the thing the student is having trouble with. Otherwise, it would resolve, wouldn’t it? If he knew what he didn’t understand, he could resolve it himself. So to talk to him about what he thinks he doesn’t understand just gets nowhere. The trouble is earlier. Ron Hubbard

So Hubbard had directed a student to look earlier and look up words, sometimes English words and sometimes Scientology words to clear as a response to blankness or the not there feeling or washed out feeling or a nervous hysteria. He directed the student to go earlier and that what the student is having trouble with isn't what they are having trouble with. A very confusing statement. Why confuse a student about what they don't get ? Check this out:


Quotes from  Ron Hubbard on the Confusion Technique: 
[Quote] 
Now, if it comes to a pass where it's very important whether or not this person acts or inacts as you wish, in interpersonal relations one of the dirtier tricks is to hang the person up on a maybe and create a confusion. And then create the confusion to the degree that your decision actually is implanted hypnotically.
The way you do this is very simple. When the person advances an argument against your decision, you never confront his argument but confront the premise on which his argument is based. That is the rule. He says, "But my professor always said that water boiled at 212 degrees."
You say, "Your professor of what?"
"My professor of physics."
"What school? How did he know?" Completely off track! You're no longer arguing about whether or not water boils at 212 degrees, but you're arguing about professors. And he will become very annoyed, but he won't know quite what he is annoyed about. You can do this so adroitly and so artfully that you can actually produce a confusion of the depth of hypnosis. The person simply goes down tone scale to a point where they're not sure of their own name.
And at that point you say, "Now, you do agree to go out and draw the water out of the well, don't you?"
"Yes-anything!" And he'll go out and draw the water out of the well. 
[End Quote] 
 Ron Hubbard Lecture, 20 May 1952 "Decision."
source Lermanet.com

So, according to Hubbard redirection of attention can confuse someone enough to achieve the depth of hypnosis. But that's what his having the student always look for something to resolve that isn't what he's having trouble with does. He's utterly confused. Hubbard had more to say on confusion and hypnosis:

“A confusion can be defined as any set of factors or circumstances which do not seem to have any immediate solution. More broadly, a confusion is random motion.” 
“Until one selects one datum, one factor, one particular in a confusion of particles, the confusion continues. The one thing selected and used becomes the stable datum for the remainder.“Any body of knowledge, more particularly and exactly, is built from one datum. That is its stable datum. Invalidate it and the entire body of knowledge falls apart. A stable datum does not have to be the correct one. It is simply the one that keeps things from being in a confusion and on which others are aligned.” – Ron Hubbard [ref]

From Scientology Study Technology Hubbard's Words

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