One more diagnostic box checked for LRH as a psychopath. As a rule, I discourage clients from following psychopaths as religious leaders.

iamvalkov, I have encountered the sort of critics you refer to, though I think there are few if any commenting here who actually take such a strident position.

What I think is often encountered, is a point of view that any benefits of Dianetics and Scientology come mainly in the earlier stages from techniques and principles adapted (without proper attribution) from other therapies and practices, that are available elsewhere at much less cost and likely in improved form. So there is a tendency to dismiss any discussion of possible benefits, that could come off as rather harsh unless explained. And there is concern that any discussion of past positive aspects, may mislead casual observers about a subject which you acknowledge has “evils.” Some also consider that the failure of independent Scientology and the “freezone” to have widespread successes or impacts, has demonstrated conclusively that there are no gains to be had outside of a high-control organization that commits those “evils” and has done more harm than good even if some benefit.

Also, it is frequently observed that those leaving Scientology often first retain some belief in Hubbard and what he claimed credit for but even that remaining loyalty usually fades with time. I think that those who believe that they have reached advanced points in that process may be frustrated with others they perceive as still stuck in the early phases, and that could seem unfairly dismissive in some cases. There may also be some who are at their own point in the process, where they may need to act in ways that might seem fanatical to the other extreme.

One major difference regarding the subject of climate change, is that there is scientific study and the expert opinions of trained researchers to refer to. The climate change deniers often resort to anecdote, such as that a cold winter disproves “global warming”. But you have only anecdotes to support your claims that “many people have benefitted” from Scientology – there is no research, and there are no scientifically trained experts in the field to evaluate evidence. If you think it through, you may find that you come out on the wrong end of that attempted comparison, and perhaps that would shed some light on the conflicts you perceive.

I am of the school of thought that there were some benefits early on. But knowing what I know now about things like confirmation bias, and understanding that the people involved were mostly a selective group who were on a trajectory to self-improvement anyway, it would not surprise me if evidence and research showed that it was all illusory.

OSD, keeping it simple since .. forever. 🙂

Wow FG, you just cannot stop your lying. The destructive LRH ethics polices WERE in use in 1970. Why do you keep lying? Is it THAT important to cover up for the criminally insane Hubbard that you debase yourself so?

Well e g.g.e., it seems that L Con’s apologists are as good at history as L. Con was at scientific research. LOL