Okay, I found the two papers you cited and looked them over. As regards the first one, for starters, there’s nothing in it that assures me the auditing was done standardly, including such crucial things as application of the Auditors Code or TRs. (I’m pretty sure this was the same “test” My 2 Cents got firsthand data about that debunked it.) The second paper wasn’t actually a test of auditing but of a hypothesis regarding the engram.

In any case, even if these experiments were valid (which I have no reason to believe, as they weren’t ever replicated or peer reviewed), they were tests of the tech of 1950 Dianetics – hardly a test of the Dianetics tech of today – much less Scientology tech, as you claimed above. The tech of each was revised and improved over the decades.

So much for the “research that has stood as authoritative for over half a century, unchallenged.” (Or were you just trying to snow me? 🙄 )

Anyway, PM, I’m done with this.

marilidi, citing the longstanding research that debunked Dianetics (and Scientology) should hardly be necessary, as fundamental to the subject is and established as it is. But here it is:

“it was concluded that:
1.dianetic therapy does not exert a systematic influence either favorably or adversely upon intellectual functioning;
2.dianetic therapy does not exert a systematic influence either favorably or adversely upon mathematical ability; and
3.dianetic therapy does not exert a systematic influence either favorably or adversely upon the degree of personality conflicts”
Fischer, Harvey Jay. “Dianetic therapy: an experimental evaluation. A statistical analysis of the effect of dianetic therapy as measured by group tests of intelligence, mathematics and personality.” Abstract of Ph.D. thesis, 1953, New York University

“In the performance of this experiment the cooperation of the Dianetic Research Foundation, Los Angeles, California, was secured.”
“the engram hypothesis was not substantiated by this experiment.”
Fox, J.; Davis, A.E.; Lebovits, B. “An experimental investigation of Hubbard’s engram hypothesis (dianetics)”. Psychological Newsletter, New York University. 10 1959, 131-134

This is the research that has stood as authoritative for over half a century, unchallenged. Any critique (such as My 2 Cents’) is spurious and invalid unless it cites new studies done to equivalent or better scientific standards; any non-expert and un-evidenced complaints about the longstanding research fall into “Sharpshooting” or other logical fallacies.

Your responsibility now, particularly if you really care about the subject, is to come up with new, valid research. I’d suggest starting with the Dror Center in Israel, which certainly has the independence necessary to perform it; it’s even possibly that there is already an effort underway, which you could support. I look forward to hearing from you about this in a couple of years, when you can contribute something concrete.

In the meantime, you can provide your “witness” (to use a religious term) about your experience; but to be responsible you should do so under the caveat that it runs counter to the research, could just be placebo effect or one of several phenomenon of coincidence (include the error of attribution – see that cognitive bias), and that what you think helped you could harm some others. And it should be noted that pursuing the subject with the CofS has significant risks and downsides, but that even doing so with independents carries some risk of harm, and involves subjecting oneself to treatment by practitioners who may not be properly trained in dealing with mental health issues that might exist or arise.

I value your contribution about some of your experiences, and perspectives, and realize that you may well be an individual who got something out of your experience with Scientology. But it’s time to say “enough” about your seemingly endless rhetorical and fallacious support of that which currently stands disproven by evidence that you don’t have the ability or grounds to properly challenge.

There is probably a conversation to be had about the “good” that some experience in Scientology, which I don’t think we address or handle as well as we might (though some of my ideas for proponents, are above) – but I think we should pick that up on a future topic, when it becomes relevant.

“Ron made him worse. Ron gave him religious justification for brutality. And brutality resonated with DM as a desirable quality”.

Well said, Bri. Totally agreed.

Wow, M2C, that’s a good impression. Spot on!

But that was the OLD Wynski. 😉

I think it was both: bad seed and whack job gardener.

I agree with you. He is who he is. But Ron taught him weapons of destruction on a very deviant level.

Ron made him worse. Ron gave him religious justification for brutality.

And brutality resonated with DM as a desirable quality.

After all, we don’t want to be lacking in ruthlessness. Look what happened to Manuela! Must learn how to brutalize with no remorse.

Brutality with no remorse is the essence of the learning in Bolivar.

Ron’s writings are a major source of the the DM personality. Straight up!

NO, Marildi! WAKE UP! Wynski is TOTALLY right, ALL the time. There is NO evidence to the contrary. Therefore he has NOT changed, and you are an IDIOT for thinking otherwise. The only bigger idiot is L. RON HUBBARD HIMSELF!

I liked Dianetics and read it 4 times in a row. Didn’t understand all of it by a long shot by I liked it.

That said, I know a person who took 8 years to read it, as this very person (an OT Viii) told me.

I swear to God. 8 years.

You’re not a fool, Bill Strauss. Something works, or it doesn’t. Something helps, or it doesn’t. That’s the simplicity of it. Auditing and training helped me too. Others it didn’t help. Obviously.

Perhaps we could all lighten up a bit and agree on something Frank Sinatra said: “I’m for whatever gets you through the night” 🙂

Brian,

I respectfullly disagree that Scientology “built” David Miscavige’s character or “gave” Miscavige a “philosophy of violence”.

If he hadn’t joined the SO, or if he hadn’t joined Scientology, he’d be bullying and abusing others in some other area.

I would go so far as to say that his Sea Org environment run on LRH’s suppressive Sea Org policies nurtured the evil qualities he already had. Very possibly LRH himself “made him right” about being violent and abusive in order to get things done.

That said, I believe that SPs or true sociopaths are born, not made.

Miscavige is a bad seed, a born bully. His rage and cruelty were there from the beginning.

This is the cruel creep that slapped his pre-clear, a girl, yet! when he was – what?…14 years old?

Think of that – who slaps their PC?

There was something wrong with him, mentally, if still in somewhat germinal form.

A bad seed. My opinion. Fine if you or anyone disagrees.

❤️??