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

The “Reactive Mind”

Discussion in 'Mike Rinders Blog' started by RSS Feed, Aug 1, 2018.

  1. RSS Feed

    RSS Feed RSS Feeder Bot

    There is a new post up at the Mike Rinder's Blog

    The “Reactive Mind”

    L. Ron Hubbard came up with a theory that he explained at great length in his book Dianetics The Modern Science of Mental Health. He presented is as scientifically proven fact, which it was not. Scientology to this day STILL claims that scientology is where science meets religion — and the most fundamental “science” is […]

    Continue reading...
  2. F.Bullbait

    F.Bullbait Oh, a wise guy,eh?

    A sure cure for the reactive mind...

    Teanntás likes this.
  3. Clay Pigeon

    Clay Pigeon Gold Meritorious Patron

    There is more than one way to read Ron's statement;

    "If ever there was a devil, he created the Reactive Mind."
    Dave B. likes this.
  4. programmer_guy

    programmer_guy True Ex-Scientologist

    Do we have reactive brain activities that can affect the prefrontal cortex? Yes.
    Does this prove Hubbard's hypothetical model in DMSMH? No.

    Do we have reactive brain activities that can affect skin resistance? Yes.
    Does this mean that there is "mental mass" impinging on the body? No.
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2018
    dchoiceisalwaysrs likes this.
  5. Clay Pigeon

    Clay Pigeon Gold Meritorious Patron

    In proper scientific terms, "mental mass" would be considered "working theory"


    As an auditor I found it workable
  6. Type4_PTS

    Type4_PTS Diamond Invictus SP

    If the scientific method were actually applied at any point during the past 70+ years then it could have been referred to as a "working hypothesis".

    Given that that is NOT the case, it would be inappropriate to characterize it in scientific terms.

    Don't worry though about letting the facts get in the way of wearing your auditor apologist hat.
  7. Clay Pigeon

    Clay Pigeon Gold Meritorious Patron

    I beg your pardon Pitsy, but I am well versed and grounded in scientific method, I am a scientist in my own right and I have applied scientific rigor to my study of Hubbard's work and all my other researches



    Have I come up with an ANOMALY!!!


    Came up with it two years ago and have been meaning to publish here...
  8. Type4_PTS

    Type4_PTS Diamond Invictus SP

    Great! I'd love to see some research notes and/or any peer-reviewed papers from you or Dr. Hubbard.

    Please post the link.
  9. Clay Pigeon

    Clay Pigeon Gold Meritorious Patron

    DMSMH was widely peer reviewed.

    I am unpublished and my peers are high school graduates and as such utter nonentities inside the halls of Academe patrolled by hordes of honestly earned PhD's in the hands of boring nerds who are least two leagues short of being the philosopher Ron was Pitsy

    And if you think that post was tinfoilly...


    You ain't seen nothin' yet

    I mean to say it is a most anomalous anomaly
  10. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    Did you investigate other theories regarding the mind? Did you consider other explanations for the results you witnessed? Did you test the null hypothesis? Did you analyze failures and unexpected results? Or did you just "have faith in Hubbard"?
    programmer_guy and Type4_PTS like this.
  11. Clay Pigeon

    Clay Pigeon Gold Meritorious Patron

    My studies have been far ranging

    In fact, i just spent about 45 minutes with the brilliance of George Carlin
  12. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    Ah! So your answer is "No, I didn't do any of that, I have faith in Hubbard". Got it!
  13. Type4_PTS

    Type4_PTS Diamond Invictus SP


  14. TomKat

    TomKat Patron Meritorious

    Personal awareness of the so-called reactive mind is a subjective perception, and the idea of subjecting it to the rigors of objective science is a non-starter. If I had that awareness, I would not try to convince someone who doesn't. And people who rely on science to determine their personal truth are beyond reach anyway.

    That said, I don't believe in the reactive mind as defined by LRH, though I have experienced the phenomenon of reactivity. So I have no problem with LRH's description of the phenomenon as a METAPHOR. I have a big problem with LRH teaching it as an objective fact and something that can be erased altogether.

    My experience along the road of "clearing" is that the clearer one becomes, the deeper the reactivity one becomes aware of. A real thorough clear would experience the emotional awareness/intensity (and reactivity) of a newborn baby, as opposed to the relative numbness of an adult. It's not uncommon for adult males to be almost completely unaware of their own reactivity, hence an over-reliance on "science." What passes for science is mostly a bunch of religious zealots calling themselves scientists due to fear of the unknown (their own minds).
    Clay Pigeon likes this.
  15. programmer_guy

    programmer_guy True Ex-Scientologist

    Could you be more specific on what you mean by this?

    I'll provide one example:
  16. dchoiceisalwaysrs

    dchoiceisalwaysrs Gold Meritorious Patron

    I would agree. The peer reviews of conmen are always so ...uhmmm full of pure confidence lines.
  17. Type4_PTS

    Type4_PTS Diamond Invictus SP

    My criticism is that LRH mischaracterized Dianetics as an "exact science on the order of engineering" and that it is simpler, as exact, and far more useful than physics and chemistry.

    LRH and his Co$ made hundreds of millions by fraudulently characterizing Dianetics as an exact science and making other outrageous claims which were complete bullshit.
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2018
    programmer_guy likes this.
  18. TomKat

    TomKat Patron Meritorious

    Any time a scientist comes across phenomena that can't be subjected to laboratory tests, they fall back on their religion and start inventing explanations, like mass hallucination or swamp gas. Much of science is ultimately government-funded nowadays, so their God is the Authority responsible for them having a paycheck. That's why even objective truth is so hard to find nowadays when 1% of the population owns half of the wealth (a fact they probably owe to 0.1% of the population who spend their days socially engineering the masses).

    Sometimes they make things up just for the hell of it, as in the 1960s when they used to teach that nearsightedness was caused by a misshapen, elongated eye!

    As to polio, you might want to check into research supporting the idea that it was on the way out by the time the vaccine came along in the early 50s, due to better hygiene, and that the epidemic may have been caused by the introduction of antibiotics which damaged the digestive systems of millions to the point their immune systems could not deal with the virus. Warning: that might violate the tenets of your religion :)
  19. Type4_PTS

    Type4_PTS Diamond Invictus SP

    It's tragic that so much research funded by both government and private corporations is done with an agenda inconsistent with the real purpose of science.

    There's also been lots of research fraud, such as the CDC shredding inconvenient documents that don't align with the desired outcome of their research.

    That's probably a subject best left to another thread though.
  20. George Layton

    George Layton Silver Meritorious Patron

    And let me guess, you created 270 clears!