ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

An honest version of Scientology?

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by Veda, Oct 8, 2018.

View Users: View Users
  1. Voodoo

    Voodoo Free Your Mind And Your Ass Will Follow

    No, the world doesn't need a new and improved version of Scientology, but I'll tell you what I'd be in favor of.

    I would like to see a group of highly trained Scn auditors who are out of the cult, get together and separate the wheat from the chaff, as regards the spiritual tech of Scn. That includes the books as well as the lectures.

    L Ron Hubbard apparently cobbled Scn together from the works of others. In some cases he lifted the tech of others whole cloth, while with others, he took someone's idea and wrote it up as his own.

    If such a project is ever done, I'm sure what winds up being culled, will be Hubbard's contributions.
    Enthetan likes this.
  2. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    Writing as someone who has cherry-picked what I think are "the good bits" of Scn tech -- whoever found/invented them -- and incorporated them into my own stuff, there's a problem with that idea.

    The deeper and longer one is immersed in "standard" Scn tech, the more one internalizes it. For example, my Robot Auditor works very well in real life but not at all in theory. Why not? Because Hubbard's theory is wrong. But "highly-trained" Scn auditors KNOW it's impossible so pooh-pooh the idea without even trying it out.

    Bill likes this.
  3. Karakorum

    Karakorum supressively reasonable

    I nominate myself :biggrin:

    Admittedly, once I would be done with it there would not be much left. Instead you'd find a lot of gestalt and positive psychology, combined with theravada and sivananda meditation practices, cognitive group therapy, not to mention a constructive criticism of neoplatonism and classic gnosticism. Plus a lot of original research, with me as primary source.

    You know what, maybe I should start a church? :questions:
  4. strativarius

    strativarius Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband

    '... separate the wheat from the chaff, as regards the spiritual tech of Scn?' My answer to that is that a very wise old man once said 'you can't polish a turd'.
    Last edited: May 19, 2019
    Xenu Xenu Xenu likes this.
  5. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    Yeah, but evaluated using what criteria? Well, it would have to be based on which processes produced consistent, reliable, predictable results -- and nothing from Scientology does that. As you have recounted in your own stories, you "got a benefit", but nothing like what was promised. That matches other stories.

    Nothing in Hubbard's "tech" produces consistent results. Nothing produces results reliably. No one can predict what will happen, if anything.

    That's all well known and very true. So how would these "trained auditors" conclude that any of his "tech" was "good"?
    strativarius likes this.
  6. Xenu Xenu Xenu

    Xenu Xenu Xenu Patron Meritorious

  7. Voodoo

    Voodoo Free Your Mind And Your Ass Will Follow

    Why would we choose to apply Hubbard's unrealistic standard of "100% workability" to the reformation and reorganization of Scn tech? Why would we repeat his mistake of so narrowly defining the EPs of various auditing procedures and levels, when experience has shown that such standards are unobtainable?

    Why not start by recognizing the fact that there's a wide range of potential benefits possible with these procedures and rundowns? No two people have ever gotten the same degree of benefit from anything in Scn, so let's begin by acknowledging that fact, then set about redefining the EPs of various auditing actions to reflect that.

    Instead of forcing every pc and auditor to strive toward some arbitrary, mythical standard, we should work towards assisting pc's to achieve whatever degree of benefit is realistic for each individual.

    For instance; an extremely literate person isn't going to experience the same quality or quantity of benefit from doing KTL as someone who's only marginally literate. There's potential benefit there for each of them, but the degree of that potential is quite different.

    Didn't Hubbard himself discuss this very thing in DMSMH when he talked about the "cleared cannibal"? I believe he did.

    Switching gears....

    How effective is Rundown X? Has it ever been shown to deliver real benefit to those receiving it? How much benefit? How little? What's the average of benefit gained? Can it be determined through studying the case files of the tens of thousands who've previously completed it?

    That's the sort of honest clinical analysis that has never been applied to Scn tech. I would think that any attempt to reform Scn tech would have to start there. Using Hubbard's EPs as a baseline, such an analysis could determine the upper and lower limits of workability for each action analyzed.

    In the end I think you'd arrive at a 'potential benefit quotient' for every action studied. As an example, it might be found that 80% of pc's experienced 'some/extreme' benefit from receiving Grade 0 auditing, while 20% experienced 'little/no' benefit. That would render a "PBQ" of 80/20, thus establishing Grade 0 as a workable, beneficial rundown to be preserved.

    Case analysis of the Purif might result in a PBQ of 50/50, which would qualify that rundown for elimination from the line-up of recognized services.

    I don't mean to get long winded here. I'm just throwing out some ideas about how such a broad analysis might be conducted. In the long run, the goal is to finally do the honest research on this technology to determine the actual workability of various components of the subject. Others are likely to have much better suggestions than mine, but I believe mine would be a logical approach to the problem.
    Last edited: May 20, 2019
  8. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    I didn't mention or even think of "Hubbard's standard" as a basis for evaluation. What I did mention was consistency, reliability, predictability as a basis. I wrote about that some time ago here (Ask the Scientologist).

    Relevant quote:
    You can't just poll people who had auditing and find out if they "got something" and then score "effectiveness" using those results. That's not scientific. That doesn't test the null hypothesis. That doesn't allow for placebo effect. That doesn't factor in other influences in people's environment. And so much more.

    To be useful a process or procedure MUST produce predictable results, consistent results, reliable results. If it produces random results, sometimes, IT ISN'T USEFUL.
  9. I told you I was trouble

    I told you I was trouble Suspended animation

    For what purpose would anyone even consider trying to rejig scientology?


    Why not just be honest about what it really is ... a once lucrative business (built on slave labour) that now holds assets that have to be serviced.

    Back in the day the cofs masqueraded as the spiritual solution to every issue known to man and built wealth by pretending to be 'saving the planet' and failed miserably.

    By any standard it is just yet another failed business unless you accept that it's declared purpose (planet saving, lol) never was the true aim ... and wealth creation was, which also means accepting that we were all conned!

    Tubs hubbard stole anything remotely useful and anything that remains of use has been updated by others in the real (non cultic) world.

    I really do not get it, why would anyone give a toss about retaining or rejigging it? Is it due to wanting to be right for having been dragged into it in the first place? Have we not peaked stupid yet?
  10. I told you I was trouble

    I told you I was trouble Suspended animation

    If anyone wants to emulate what was incredibly successful about the cofs they should just look at its business model, if they intend to copy it though a prerequisite would be that they have absolutely no scruples or conscience.

    Xenu Xenu Xenu likes this.
  11. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    One of the 30 mostly-non-Scn modules at PaulsRobot3 is ExpGrade0, all 654 pages of it. For purists, not that one would be using PaulsRobot, I added a Robot Examiner page at the end. I give 3 different EPs so one can choose an appropriate one:

    Official End Phenomenon
    All right! Please read the Official End Phenomenon for Expanded Grade 0 (Communications Release):​
    Ability to communicate freely with anyone on any subject.

    Alternative End Phenomenon
    Here is the Alternative End Phenomenon for Expanded Grade 0 (Communications Release):​
    Feels good about the auditing received on this level and feels pretty good about communicating with others.

    Weasel End Phenomenon
    OK. I got through that one. Next?


    Voodoo likes this.
  12. Voodoo

    Voodoo Free Your Mind And Your Ass Will Follow

    Bill, I think your 'reformation' criteria are logical and well reasoned, but too close to Hubbard's concept of absolutes, which you yourself have maintained, are unobtainable.

    Quote: "To be useful a process or procedure MUST produce predictable results, consistent results, reliable results. If it produces random results, sometimes, IT ISN'T USEFUL."

    Sure, but I contend that we should allow for a range of "predictable, consistent, and reliable" results, which is what happens in the real world anyway. Quantifying the amount of benefit gained is the hard part. How does the field of psychology determine the validity and effectiveness of its techniques? Perhaps Scn tech reformers could start there.

    There may not be a proven, 100% accurate way to do that, but surely there are recognized procedures already developed for testing such techniques, to gain insights into their effectiveness and value as mental therapy tools.

    Again, I'm just tossing out ideas for how to approach such an undertaking.
  13. Voodoo

    Voodoo Free Your Mind And Your Ass Will Follow

    Thank you, Paul. That's exactly along the lines of what I'm talking about. We need to start with a realistic standard, then go from there.

    And thank you for introducing the pc's reaction to the mix. That's vitally important in trying to gauge the effectiveness and value of the individual parts of Scn tech. Did it help the person? Let's ask!

    In your above example, it could be said that any result that falls between EP#1 and EP#2 qualifies as being workable, while anything between EP#2 and EP#3 does not. Obviously, the only way to obtain that data is through surveying the pc's upon completion. One might say, "Well, that's not scientific.", but the whole area is subjective in nature. You're practically forced to ask the participants to rate the value of the exercise in order to gain any real insight.

    Hubbard laid down arbitrary, utopian standards that were all or nothing. If the pc didn't achieve the precise stated EP, he/she was considered to have failed to realize the 'standard' gains from the level or process, when in fact, the pc often achieved all they could achieve from that action and was happy with the result.

    Let's look at it this way. In grading the academic achievement of students, our education establishment considers anything between 70% and 100% to be an acceptable standard for a passing grade. Why not use some similar set of criteria for grading the effectiveness of Scn tech?

    Hubbard says anything below 100% is a fail. It's an unrealistic standard, which has doomed countless thousands to overruns, unnecessary repairs, and severe invalidation. Even worse, the organization considers it your fault if you didn't make the grade.

    Never mind that the pc experienced positive benefit from doing the action. If they didn't voice Hubbard's precise EP upon completion, they're considered a 'no gain' case. That's a suppressive standard, which doesn't allow for real world results.
    Dulloldfart likes this.
  14. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    This is correct, Voodoo . . .

    We are not cookie-cutter samenesses, as Alan Walter was fond of saying: "Each person's case opens up in the way it does for him or her personally."

    Indeed, two points on this "EP" thing . . .
    1) Hubbard's Grade Chart trick was nothing more than a fraudulent marketing gambit designed to sell services!!!!
    2) The best and most honest judgement call as to whether the action taken by any individual is beneficial, is: Did it achieve the desired end result for the individual. This criteria being based on what is/was it the individual wanted to address, change, handle, upgrade the condition of or improve performance relative to.

    Pretty simple really. With competitive, elite athletes as an example, the demonstration of efficacy shows in measured results of improved performance.
    DagwoodGum and Voodoo like this.
  15. DagwoodGum

    DagwoodGum Squirreling Dervish

    I no longer buy into Hubbard's concept of each of us being an endless, bottomless repository of aberration that one can purchase freedom from by the intensive.
    I've been exterior and seen that I carry no such baggage, if others do carry copious copies of past life traumas then they may benefit from some of the rundowns that were developed by those working for Hubbard.
    For me the auditing was an empty disappointment and any kinder, gentler Scientology machine gun hand would have no value to me but would rather just waste more of my time chasing shadows.
    However, spiritual exercises such as "how to free yourself from the tractor beam from another" would be of tremendous value, as in psychic Aikido.
    But I doubt anyone among the living would have that solution in hand or they'd already be long gone across this trap door psychic abyss of a world to a kinder, gentler reality.
    Last edited: May 20, 2019
  16. Karakorum

    Karakorum supressively reasonable

    No psychological therapy (and I'd consider auditing would be something in this category) does that. Even modern psychological procedures such as CBT do not produce that.

    We need to give the devil his due.
  17. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    Then how would you evaluate one of Hubbard's processes? How would you prove that this process is effective and that process isn't? How would you define "effective" and how would you prove it?
  18. Karakorum

    Karakorum supressively reasonable

    I would not.
  19. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    Something like this maybe? TIR is Dianetics, more or less. [emphasis mine]

    Evaluating Traumatic Incident Reduction Therapy With Female Inmates: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

    Abstract: Objective: An experimental outcome study with trauma-related symptoms was conducted to examine the effectiveness of traumatic incident reduction (TIR). It is a brief, memory-based, therapeutic intervention and was used to treat symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, and low expectancy of success (i.e., low self-efficacy). Method: A randomized pretest-posttest control group design with 123 female inmates in a federal prison was used to evaluate the efficacy of the interventive procedure. The Post-Traumatic Symptom Scale, the Beck Depression Inventory, the Clinical Anxiety Scale, and the Generalized Expectancy of Success Scale were administered at pretest, posttest, and 3-month follow-up time intervals. Results: A repeated-measures MANOVA showed significant differences between the treatment and comparison control conditions on all measures at posttest and follow-up time intervals except for the PTSD Intrusion subscale at the posttest interval. Conclusion: The marked improvement of the treatment condition by comparison to those in the control condition supports the contention that TIR is an effective intervention with female inmates. The significant results on all measures at the follow-up time interval provide persuasive evidence of the stability of the interventive effects. The significance of this therapy model for use by practitioners with social work populations is highlighted.

    Now, I think Dianetics sucks big time as a therapy, so don't think I am endorsing it.

    DagwoodGum likes this.
  20. DagwoodGum

    DagwoodGum Squirreling Dervish

    Hubbard's notion that incident trauma is sourced from some basic basic, implant or other major trauma when it seems to me equally plausible that the traumatic potential could build as incidents on a chain occur even when as mild as Chinese water torture.
    Sometimes it's the overwhelm of repeatability that wears on a person to where they become increasingly traumatized as the incidents occur rather than having some purported basic basic charge restimulate the earlier incident at a time later on the chain.
    I just don't see any reason to assume that Dianetics was ever effectively researched and verified so I decided decades ago that it was bunk theory that had little merit in practicality.