Thank you for taking the time to provide such a calm, thoughtful and detailed reply. I feel this is perhaps wasted as a comment on what is now a somewhat old post. Would you mind if I took this and published it as a post in my blog?

Hi PeaceMaker, do you mind if I also take a stab at answering since this is kind of related to my research at the moment anyways?

So what type of therapy a person uses with a client depends on many things, first what type of mental illness or issue they have – for example something that works for a 12yr with bulimia isn’t the same as a 88 year old male with bipolar issues. Plus some are willing to take medications and others aren’t, but also CBT has been shown to be more effective than drugs AND their have been other breakthroughs of externally worn stimulation machines so as a field things are moving away from drugs and into things which create more neuroplasticity (please look up term, it’s key!).

Some non-drug therapies and their best uses are as follows (taken from a larger article at TalkSpace):

Accelerated Experiential Dynamic Therapy [AEDP]
AEDP explores difficult emotional and relational experiences to develop coping tools that allow better functioning.

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy [ACT]
ACT helps clients develop mindfulness skills with the goal of consistent values and psychological flexibility.

Adlerian Psychotherapy
This approach improves the ability to adapt to feelings of inadequacy and inferiority relative to others.

Anger Management
This approach teaches clients to identify stressors, remain calm and handle tense situations in a positive and constructive manner.

Bibliotherapy
This approach uses literature to improve mental health and explore psychological issues.

Coherence Therapy [Depth-Oriented Brief Therapy]
Coherence therapy helps clients empathetically and quickly delve into deeply held emotional beliefs.

Collaborative Therapy
In collaborative therapy both the therapist and client use knowledge and experience to make progress.

Compassion-Focused Therapy
This approach encourages people to be compassionate toward themselves and others.

Conflict-Resolution Therapy
This approach teaches clients how to resolve conflicts with great results and minimal stress.

Core Process Psychotherapy [CPP]
CPP is a mindfulness-based approach that emphasizes awareness of body and mind for self-exploration and healing.

Dialectical Behavior Therapy [DBT]
DBT uses a problem solving and acceptance-based framework — among other strategies —- usually to treat severe and chronic mental health conditions and issues, including borderline personality disorder, suicidal thoughts, self-harming, eating disorders and PTSD.

Ego State Therapy
Based on psychodynamic therapy, ego state therapy operates under the principle that a person’s psyche is composed of identities and roles he or she takes on. It addresses these identities and the mental health issues they might be connected to.

Emotion-Focused Therapy [EFT]
EFT uses emotions as a source of healing and insight. It is especially effective for moderate depression, issues of childhood abuse and couples in the middle of a conflict.

Intensive Short-Term Dynamic Psychotherapy [ISTDP]
ISTDP helps clients permanently change character flaws in a short period of time by releasing emotional inhibitions and discussing the source of character issues.

Interpersonal Psychotherapy [IPT]
IPT focuses on interpersonal issues such as relationships and major life events. Its goal is to improve mood and interpersonal issues within 6-20 weeks.

Journey Therapy
In journey therapy the therapist guides the client on a mental and emotional journey to uncover repressed memories that have created issues in the present.

Jungian Psychotherapy
Jungian psychotherapy focuses on the balance of consciousness and unconsciousness. Clients can become more whole and well-adjusted by achieving this balance and exploring both sides.

Logotherapy
Logotherapy focuses on the pursuit of meaning and purpose in one’s life.

Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy
This therapy combines the best of CBT with mindfulness strategies that help clients assess thoughts in the present.

Motivation Enhancement Therapy [MET]
MET focuses on improving motivations to make positive changes and eliminate maladaptive patterns.

Narrative Therapy
Narrative therapy helps clients interpret their experiences as stories that give meaning to their lives and guide them. It encourages people to identify their skills, values and knowledge so they can use them to live well.

Positive Psychotherapy
This approach helps clients view their illness or issues in a positive way. It focuses on the abilities of the client, inner balance, storytelling and hope.

Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy [REBT]
REBT helps clients develop rational thinking to facilitate healthy emotional behavior and expression. It is similar to CBT.

Reality Therapy
Reality therapy focuses on present issues and encourages clients to change behavior that might be preventing them from addressing those issues. It operates under the principle that people experience distress when they are not meeting five basic needs: power, love/belonging, freedom, fun and survival.

Redecision Therapy
Redecision therapy helps clients examine messages from caretakers and adults in their childhood, as well as any negative decisions.

Relational Psychotherapy
Relational psychotherapy helps client become cognitively and emotionally healthy by forming and maintaining fulfilling relationships.

Schema Therapy
Schema therapy helps clients identify the cognitive and behavior patterns that are causing or maintaining their mental health issues. It is especially effective in treating borderline personality disorder.

Solution-Focused Brief Therapy [SFBT]
SFBT focuses on goals for the present and future rather than addressing the past or symptoms.

Symbolic Modeling
This therapeutic approach uses symbols, progressive questioning, metaphors and modeling to enact positive change.

and also, not listed in TalkSpace’s article Cognitive behavioral therapy [CBT] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy

~~~~~~~~~~

The thing I’m creating has buried elements of Cognitive behavioral therapy [CBT], Dialectical Behavior Therapy [DBT], and Emotion-Focused Therapy [EFT] in the art/music lessons which is great because then the traumatized child can just experience it as a fun art/music lesson rather than “therapy.”

Hopefully PeaceMaker can take it from this point (as I won’t have time for months and might forget this thread in the meanwhile) but I highly recommend checking out the intro science lessons on https://www.jove.com/syllabus-mapping whilst it’s free until mid-June. Good luck!

Aviv: “Thank you very much for your detailed comment. It was truly enlightening.”

You’re welcome Aviv. Odd aside my neighbor is also named Aviv, he’s from Canada but his mom is originally Israeli.

Sorry for the delay, this is my third pandemic and there’s a lot on my plate. Hours for the first few weeks not dissimilar to when in the Sea Org, I digress.

Aviv: “I have a question. Except of studying the spirit in the ways you mentioned, what do scientists do currently to help a spirit?”

For this there’s a bit of some “step 0’s” as it were:

The first would be how Non-scientologists, especially scientists define belief vs. fact; and how it differs from Scientology/ist use of those terms.

I’m also using the term “Scientologists” here to include independents, other “squirrel”-types, and those in “corporate scientology.” With the caveat that like Mike Rinder I think that “Squirrels” and/or “Indies” for lack of a better term aren’t any more variant/odd philosophically to mainstream society than say anyone practicing a rarer spirituality, ex. Odinism.

Please don’t take this as an insult, it’s not intended as such and unfortunately until there’s a term for both people who Miscavige would call “squirrels” but follow Hubbard’s teachings + those in his “corporate scientology” group as a bigger group (sort of like Catholics +Protestants+Orthodox are all together called Christians) then we kind of have no choice but to use the term “Scientologists” for all of you. Even if we really only take major issue with Miscavige’s people and the related abuses.

The thing with “religious schisms” (the term which Historians call what you’re going through) are tough and a lot of things have no names until later as people create them. I might suggest “Hubbardist’s” since you all follow his teachings in your own ways, but it’s also not my place as someone who no longer follows them in any way shape or form to decide the term. Good luck with that …

Back to the OG topic’s step O’s.

So from a scientific point of view, though again most non-scientologist’s agree:

A “Belief” is something that is true for an individual or group, but either cannot be proved historically/scientifically or through similar academic means; and is often derived from a spiritual construct and/or non-independently verified anecdotal experiences.

To paraphrase a Hubbard quote “if it’s true for you it’s true” and to science and in general that type of truth is a considered a “belief.”

For example, with auditing we cannot also say strap a person experiencing it to an EEG/MRI/etc. to see what’s going on with their brainwaves. I mean we could do some of this technologically, but doubt a single auditor would allow what say Buddhist monks/advanced practitioners allowed here https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-12661646. Though someone could do before/after/baseline. There have been a few studies on auditing as a practice and there’s no conclusive evidence of engrams as Hubbard defines them. This is not the same as conclusive evidence they don’t exist either.

Ergo = belief.

However it’s also interesting to note that Richard Semon’s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Semon) definition of the word and similar concept pre-dates Hubbard’s by many years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engram_%28neuropsychology%29) though at least it’s testable & potentially falsifiable. As an aside increasing evidence from genetic theory as well as advances in neuroimaging (various machines that can see brain activity + structure) make the theory less likely.

Which leads me to my next point, even if there is a “spirit” this is also considered a belief due to its non-Falsifiability/non-testability (cannot conclusively be proven true or false). Excerpt from https://think.taylorandfrancis.com/aa-ghosts-and-spirits/ a publication in my field.

“For anthropologists, the reality of ghosts and spirits is in the cultural realm; if people grow up hearing tales of malevolent ghosts, they are likely to “see” and feel the presence of ghosts around them. These spirits are real because they affect people’s thought and behavior. ”

The existence of being a spirit, having a spirit or their being spirits isn’t provable in the scientific sense and is thus a belief.

In contrast a “fact” is true regardless of if a person/group believes it or not. Like gravity or the salinity of certain oceans or the earth being round. Did you know there are still people who believe the earth’s flat? Their belief doesn’t make the world less round though.

The second step O is the concept here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

This means scientists ‘as scientists’ only really study what people believe, why they believe it, a belief’s or it’s related practices measurable effects, how that belief evolved, such like. Also, even social scientists who do engage in the practice of “participant observation” are engaging in those spiritual practices to understand the process of a particular ritual (ex. Confession) in order to feel the effects themselves vs. believing a belief themselves. They might or might not belief the belief(s) behind the process, it matters not.

Again as seen here https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/ many scientists don’t have any religious/spiritual beliefs or practices themselves. Those who don’t have them fall into two groups “strict materialists”: those who “believe” everything has a material explanation) and “non-materialists”: those with who believe in some spiritual concepts but generally don’t believe in God(s/esses) or believe such beings and/or religion has very little effect or importance on overall quality of life.

In the end scientists, like indeed most people, engage in or with whatever spirit or spirits, as part of themselves or others might exist within the context of whatever faith they have. Scientist learn to bifurcate (split) what they belief as “faith X” from what they know as scientists.

Scientists ‘as scientists’ don’t engage thusly, they’re looking for the effects – positive, negative or placebo or nocebo (https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMra1907805) etc.

Other related references:

https://www.jospt.org/doi/full/10.2519/jospt.2013.0105
https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMra1907805
https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/mindfulness-can-improve-heart-health

As a Taoist I do *believe* many things (myself included) have a spiritual component.

However as a Scientist I *know* that this belief is not a testable hypothesis and therefore not “fact,” nor scientific.

Hopefully this clarifies things. Please feel free to dig into some basic science texts, or shows like @StarTalkRadio or those on @Discovery should be a good gradient.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wynski you’re right in that what Aviv is proposing isn’t science, but you’re dead wrong in your approach. My fellow social scientist’s term this “othering” and it does the exact opposite of the intention of science as a body as well the general tone of this site.

http://www.otheringandbelonging.org/the-problem-of-othering/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/darwins-subterranean-world/201904/the-psychology-othering

https://www.echotraining.org/survivorempowerment/

Science is a method of studying and engaging in the world; it’s primary uses are to increase understanding through discovery of how things work, create new things, enlighten and educate.

Trying to make people feel shitty because they don’t know/understand something is antithetical to that.

Dear PeaceMaker,

Thank you for the tip about a graduate student. I might use it one day.

“* L. B. Fisher, “Dianetic Theory: An Experimental Evaluation”, Dissertation abstracts, New York University, New York, 1954, p. 390.
*C. Fox, A. Davis, and A. Lebovits, “Experimental Investigation of Hubbard’s Engram Hypothesis”, Psychological Abstracts, No. 1475, 1960.” – unfortunately couldn’t find them online. If you have them in a file, please send it to me to friendsofdrorcenter@gmail.com.

In this comment http://www.mikerindersblog.org/purification-rundown-debunked/#comment-261947 – David W. Schnare says that the research was incomplete due to lack of funding and gives somewhat positive feedback on the Purif: “In any case, the Purif can reduce body burdens of chemicals you really don’t want in the body.”

TIR is not scientology auditing. It has its own rules – irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

You write: “Dianetics and Scientology provide no more benefits than garden-variety counseling at best – and, of course, can do nothing at all for those most severely afflicted with mental and psychologial problems, and thus truly in need of help.”

Assuming the above is true, although it totally contradicts my daily observations, what is, in your opinion, the best practice/science/ counselling on Earth today to help a person with mental, emotional, spiritual problems and to help those most severely afflicted with mental and psychological problems?

Best Regards,

Aviv

Aviv, you ask the right question regarding studies about Scientology – apparently you are unaware of the studies that have already been done.

Hubbard knew that real scientific validation would provide proof of his theories, and be the best marketing tool ever, so the Hubbard Dianetics Research Foundation was set up. Its efforts and some independent ones ended in failure, and were conveniently forgotten. See, for instance:

* L. B. Fisher, “Dianetic Theory: An Experimental Evaluation”, Dissertation abstracts, New York University, New York, 1954, p. 390.
*C. Fox, A. Davis, and A. Lebovits, “Experimental Investigation of Hubbard’s Engram Hypothesis”, Psychological Abstracts, No. 1475, 1960.

About 3 decades later, Scientology’s FASE project tried again – and once again it was a failure, and the results, showing that Dianetics and Scientology indeed operated at nothing more than the level of placebo effects, were swept under the rug again. One of the doctors involved in those failed trials commented here:

http://www.mikerindersblog.org/purification-rundown-debunked/#comment-261947

And there were actually psychologists and even psychiatrists not only studying Dianetics and Scientology, but involved in it. The the most famous of those was successful mission holder Dr. Frank “Sarge” Gerbode. He later went on to try to distill auditing into a form that could be scientifically studied and validated, Traumatic Incident Reduction or TIR – which turned out to be only about as effective as other talk therapies used in psychology, and thus nothing exceptional:

http://www.appliedmetapsychology.org/research-publications/case-studies/

That should pretty much settle it, that Dianetics and Scientology provide no more benefits than garden-variety counseling at best – and, of course, can do nothing at all for those most severely afflicted with mental and psychologial problems, and thus truly in need of help. And if you don’t like those results, why don’t you do another study there in Israel? All it really takes is a graduate student looking for a project.

The failure of independent Dianeticicsts and Scientologists to do any proper research in the last 70 years (other than Sarge Gerbode, above), by itself pretty much proves that they are not practicing, and incapable of doing, actual science.

Dear Sarduseu,

Thank you for your comment and advise. I appreciate your 22 years long contribution. As to self, I am striving not to take anything for granted in all spheres of my life.

Best regards,

Aviv

Dear Aviv
I’ve spent 22 yrs inn the SO and I know a bit of the tech. You should definitely continue with your independent delivery of Hubbard procedures so long as they produce what they promise. One of the main fraud perpetrated by the official orgs, none excluded is the fact that they do not deliver what they promise. Some glaring examples are the Ls and OT8. On the Ls one is supposed to achieve the EP of Stably Exterior with full perception. I have never met anyone who did them and could do that, I’ve even run into some refund case who was an Ls completion and stated in session he had never gone ext. On OT8 one is supposed to handle amnesia on the Whole track and the result is the same, I’ve had many of them in session and nobody had that ability. I can confirm by personal experience that 98% of the persons I hhave audited felt better as result of the auditing, but it is different than stating thy all achieved the Whole lot of promised abilities stated on the bridge. Not to mention the atrocity of the Truth RD, I suppose you do not know about since it’s not available in the field (Heavens forbid) I can’t call that auditing but torture and it does not make anyone better because it’s designed to make you admit to be a criminal to make yourself wrong and Miscavige right. So to end my advice here. keep up the good work, but do not believe blindly that all that LRH wrote was true. I used to have that silly viewpoint while on staff, that’s not the case anymore. Do well and do not fall for all those who get sick are PTS, it is not the case.

I meant China (not chin)

Jenyfurrr. Thank you. The second greetings is a Mike’s quote from the Thursday funnies that made me laugh for a couple of days.

Yes we are doing fine. My family wife daughters and granddaughters all doing well and all “safe” in the same location. Thanks for you prayers. I pray for all of you too.

Here in Italy is a little better but it is as well the key moment to keep the restrictions on. Nothing is said until the virologist would says we left it behind.

In chin I just read yesterday the have hundred new cases in one day.

We must stay awake.