“mwesten, I think the flip side is that “the tech” has been boosted with unstable techniques which also produce dangerous effects that should not be understated. Some might get better, but others will get worse…”

Absolutely. It’s such a huge unknown…and thus impossible/illogical to recommend.

“I think Hubbard was fully aware of this, but his cynical calculation was that it was justified in the quest to make ‘homo novis.'”

I think so too. And as his customer base increased, so too the disaffections. New terms had to be introduced to excuse the failures. Disconnection was almost inevitable. There’s nothing that reduces a placebo’s potency more than the revelation it’s actually just worthless crap. “[O]ne must be able to detect and weed out so they don’t contaminate…” Those dissatisfied were disposed of quietly and without sorrow. The indignant followed soonafter.

I suspect that Miscavige realized the only way to control the problem in the modern media era was to go to the source – and deliver less auditing, and only under the most controlled circumstances possible and to people vetted to not actually be in need of help, in order to minimize incidents.

This would suggest a recognition of Hubbard’s fallibility…or the incompetence of auditors under his stewardship. Or both. Not a great advert, either way.

The fact that only higher orgs seem remotely risk averse is arguably an admission of the possible effects of long-term participation. That they’re still happy to tromp hard on a complete stranger’s ruin before sending them spinning out onto the street suggests they really don’t give a crap about the average newbie. They’re playing the odds. They know the risks are far greater the higher up you go. Again, not a great advert.

Hubbard’s state of mind just prior to his death is arguably the worst advert of all.

mwesten, I think the flip side is that “the tech” has been boosted with unstable techniques which also produce dangerous effects that should not be understated.

Some might get better, but others will get worse.

Some might be freed from traumas, but for others they will deepen.

Some might have their sanity saved, but others will go psychotic.

Some might be saved from suicide, but others will be driven to it.

I think Hubbard was fully aware of this, but his cynical calculation was that it was justified in the quest to make “homo novis.” Scientology managed to sweep the problem under the rug for a long time, covering up cases, but starting with some sensational bad outcomes in the 1990s like those of Noah Lottick, Lisa McPherson and Philip Gale, followed by the Elli Perkins case in the early 2000s, I suspect that Miscavige realized the only way to control the problem in the modern media era was to go to the source – and deliver less auditing, and only under the most controlled circumstances possible and to people vetted to not actually be in need of help, in order to minimize incidents.

I think you’re generally right about placebo effects – plus Scientology works as particularly effective social or mind control as well.

Self evident. It starts and ends with belief:

1. The hope/expectation of results.
2. Belief in the auditor/supervisor.
3. Belief in Hubbard, his theories, his authority.
4. Belief in the tech’s efficacy.

1 and 2, it should be noted, are what psychologists claim to be the primary healing factors in psychotherapy – the quality of the therapist/patient relationship and the expectation of results.

In the absence of any evidence to support Hub’s claims, a scientologist must rely on faith (aka “certainty”, “knowingness”). External validation, as with other religions, is provided/reinforced by the group. Rather than admit to this and just own their beliefs, scientologists:

a) deny their religiosity by attempting to cloak themselves with the trappings of scientific absolutism – no religious discipline does this.

b) deny the value of logic, evidence and the scientific method as means to establish credibility – no scientific discipline does this.

c) expect to be taken at their word.

Most odd. I would say “unique” but I’m pretty sure Bergian kabbalists are the same. #smh

“(scientology is faith-based, afterall). ”

WRONG mwestern. Scamology is SPECIFICALLY not faith-based. where did you get that bull shit from?

“Has someone “overcome a trauma” if the “method” he used was purposely designed to fool and demean him AND consistently failed to deliver the tangible, empirical results it promised?”

All placebos are deceptive. Whether one should be used as treatment is a valid ethical concern; it doesn’t negate the potential value of its effect.

Overcoming trauma is one of the many promised results of scientology. It may well be a false positive (placebo effect) but it is arguably not an unintended consequence.

“If someone gives up suicidal ideation as a result of doing scientology has he, in fact, given it up? I would argue that he has not even addressed the issue, but merely been misdirected away from it with disassociative routines, propaganda, and indoctrination.”

Sure, that’s a decent argument. To assume it is valid in all cases, however, is to conclude an unknown.

I, too, was suicidal pre-scientology. Whilst it was never specifically addressed, the contributing factors were resolved separately and to my satisfaction. One could indeed argue this result came about from misdirection and conditioning and, I admit, I do consider myself lucky the effects have not worn off since. But I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t thankful. There was much that truly sucked about my scientology experience but this was not one of them. This was a “real result” – even if the tools were, in part, illusory.

For me, scientology served a purpose. I would not actively recommend its use, particularly long term. As a therapy, in its current form, scientology is profoundly unethical. But ethics aside, its misdirecting nature doesn’t negate its potential for therapeutic value. Its potency arguably requires it.

Richard,
If you haven’t already, check out Margaret Singer’s 6 Conditions For Thought Reform and Robert Jay Lifton’s 8 Criteria For Thought Reform.
Plug dianetics and scientology into those assessment models; it’s an interesting and enlightening exercise.
Yes, people can be induced to have euphoric experiences; they can be fooled, manipulated, and gaslighted, too…and swear that all of that has ” produced wins ” for them. Depressing, but true…
Cheers😎

Has someone ” overcome a trauma ” if the ” method ” he used was purposely designed to fool and demean him AND consistently failed to deliver the tangible,empirical results it promised( dianetics and scientology )? If someone ” gives up suicidal ideation ” as a result of doing scientology or dianetics, has he, in fact, given it up? I would argue that he has not even addressed the issue, but merely been misdirected away from it with disassociative routines, propaganda, and indoctrination. I WAS suicidal before I got into the cult. Scientology merely obscured the core issues and made me more or less emotionally numb. I have dealt with this issue since leaving the cult. Cults and the related issue of behavioral modification have been studied and written about extensively for over 60 years. I would recommend that ex-members of any cult check out that body of information.

I think it does have to be acknowledged that participants of any such group or cult may have gotten some basic benefits of talk therapy and belonging to a sort of support group – not to mention placebo effects. But that has essentially nothing to do with the “tech,” teachings or whatever.

I’d argue both “the tech” and Hub’s sci-fi are purposely built, layered and sequenced to induce placebo effects. And the therapeutic potential of the placebo effect should not be understated. Certainly its value in psychology and medicine is well established.

Whether it’s “real” enough for outsiders is irrelevant.

Who is anyone to argue what’s “real” for an individual whose power of belief liberates him from suicidal ideation?

If someone overcomes trauma, a loss, a phobia, or simply feels more empowered from use of scientology techniques, can you reasonably claim they didn’t benefit?

Are these not in fact the “real results” everyday scientologists experience whilst on their desperate quest for godhood?

That no reliable evidence of results currently exist outside of a participant’s belief is inarguable (scientology is faith-based, afterall).

Yet absence of evidence does not necessarily equal evidence of absence. One can be skeptical without appealing to ignorance. #imho

Thanks Dude! I appreciate the support.

No problem! 😉