What's new

Your infestation of space-cooties/spirit fleas

RolandRB

Rest in Peace
You still aren't addressing my point. The fact that there IS a placebo effect, at all, is boggling. The fact that it is expected by statisticians is irrelevant: it just shows they are used to the placebo being effective. You seem to be inferring that the placebo effect is irrelevant, that it is essentially just unaccounted for "other variables" or some such. Perhaps it is. Perhaps it isn't: perhaps it is the person's belief that they will get better that accounts for the placebo effect (and they do actually get better). Perhaps this is also a component of the effectiveness of the drug, as well, and perhaps this is why most drugs' effectiveness tapers off over the years, as the hype surrounding it wears off.

I did address your point. That there IS a placebo effect is due to random chance and the probability distribution. It is not "boggling". It is a perfectly natural and expected outcome due to the nature of statistics. Overall, people will not get "better" on placebo. Some will -- most won't. To further explain, if a clinical trial is held across many sites, as it usually is, then drugs have succesfully gone to market where at some of these sites the placebo arm has done better that the trial drug arm. This happens at about one in six sites. Nothing "boggling" about it.

Statistical variations confuse many people, especially those who "want to believe" something. I saw an article once that a medic should not have published, but did, entitled "Is Laura cured of HIV?". While making no claims he pointed out that this person had been given anti-retroviral drugs followed by what was either an innoculation against HIV or a placebo and then this person had had no sign of HIV in their system for six months after being taken off all medication. Was this due to an active innoculation or did this person have placebo. They had been given placebo. I was the programmer on this trial and I saw the results after unblinding. Did the placebo somehow "cure" this person? No, this is just a normal outcome due to statistical chance and of no significance.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Ah. I see what you're getting at; yes, placebos are used in broad trials where it's only about statistical distribution. But, on a much more local level, placebos are used for the 'I expect it to help me' purpose. And, often it does. And yes, actually effective treatments have to stand up in comparison to both.

Zinj
 

RolandRB

Rest in Peace
Ah. I see what you're getting at; yes, placebos are used in broad trials where it's only about statistical distribution. But, on a much more local level, placebos are used for the 'I expect it to help me' purpose. And, often it does. And yes, actually effective treatments have to stand up in comparison to both.

Zinj

It may seem like a different situation but you have to look at the situation more closely. You could trick a person into thinking they had been given a super-powerful effective medication when you had given them placebo and they might get better. But what made them better? They might have got better anyway. If it were their change of outlook to a more positive attitude then maybe the illness was mostly in their heads anyway. And what of all the other people subjected to the same trick? Did most of them take a dose, find it didn't work, then not take it any more or go to a different doctor? You have to take into the account the effect on a group of people sufficient in number to ensure the outcome had some statistical significance. It's no good picking on just the ones that stand out because those ones might have got better for a different reason. The best you can do is make a statistical statement about it and even then it does not "prove" that it works or otherwise. The most you can prove is that there was less chance of that happening than would do for a random effect.

These people who say Scientology is a mixture of things that do work and don't work and a critic is only believable if they acknowledge that there is some workable technology mixed in with it are ignoring the random effect. I am sure some people's lives have been improved by Scientology but I see more people leave the Church than stay in and more people are overall critical of the Church than praise its virtues. The conclusion I come to is that it is net harmful and if there is some good in it then those aspects of it are unproven.
 
It may seem like a different situation but you have to look at the situation more closely. You could trick a person into thinking they had been given a super-powerful effective medication when you had given them placebo and they might get better. But what made them better? They might have got better anyway. If it were their change of outlook to a more positive attitude then maybe the illness was mostly in their heads anyway. And what of all the other people subjected to the same trick? Did most of them take a dose, find it didn't work, then not take it any more or go to a different doctor? You have to take into the account the effect on a group of people sufficient in number to ensure the outcome had some statistical significance. It's no good picking on just the ones that stand out because those ones might have got better for a different reason. The best you can do is make a statistical statement about it and even then it does not "prove" that it works or otherwise. The most you can prove is that there was less chance of that happening than would do for a random effect.

These people who say Scientology is a mixture of things that do work and don't work and a critic is only believable if they acknowledge that there is some workable technology mixed in with it are ignoring the random effect. I am sure some people's lives have been improved by Scientology but I see more people leave the Church than stay in and more people are overall critical of the Church than praise its virtues. The conclusion I come to is that it is net harmful and if there is some good in it then those aspects of it are unproven.


Yes I understand that statistics, not understood, allows for all sorts of extremely invalid reasoning - invalid in the sense that things may seem to add up to a particular conclusion, but only to someone who does not fully understand why some of our apparently water tight conclusions can be very wrong.

But thats all I understand. I have not actually studied statistics. But what you have written supports the idea that it is not necessarily true that the amount of benefit we may feel that we experienced from cult practices proves that scientology "tech" is of "X" amount of benefit to all partakers or would-be parteakers and that "the rest of it" is useless or harmful. So those who say it's all bad may not be as unfair as some people think they are.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
It may seem like a different situation but you have to look at the situation more closely. You could trick a person into thinking they had been given a super-powerful effective medication when you had given them placebo and they might get better. But what made them better? They might have got better anyway. If it were their change of outlook to a more positive attitude then maybe the illness was mostly in their heads anyway. And what of all the other people subjected to the same trick? Did most of them take a dose, find it didn't work, then not take it any more or go to a different doctor? You have to take into the account the effect on a group of people sufficient in number to ensure the outcome had some statistical significance. It's no good picking on just the ones that stand out because those ones might have got better for a different reason. The best you can do is make a statistical statement about it and even then it does not "prove" that it works or otherwise. The most you can prove is that there was less chance of that happening than would do for a random effect.

These people who say Scientology is a mixture of things that do work and don't work and a critic is only believable if they acknowledge that there is some workable technology mixed in with it are ignoring the random effect. I am sure some people's lives have been improved by Scientology but I see more people leave the Church than stay in and more people are overall critical of the Church than praise its virtues. The conclusion I come to is that it is net harmful and if there is some good in it then those aspects of it are unproven.

R3RA, as named in the Church, is only "unproven" if you disregard the "active ingredient": the method itself. Cognitive flooding, desensitisation, abreaction: these things are the active ingredients (though most scientologists will have no idea what those words mean) from a psychology perspective, and they are both tried and true.

Placebo is effective, as well, and it's not a "trick". It can be used in that manner. Bedside manner induces faith in the practitioner, and this, alone, increases likelihood of positive outcome.

You are right that there can be a variety of reasons that people in a placebo group get better (or worse), and that it's not necessarily just their belief that they will get better. It's tough to isolate.

Ultimately, we agree, I think, that Scientology as a whole system is dangerous to people and even to organizations with which it has interaction. I would steer people clear of the Church at all costs, and only with qualifications would I send people to FreeZoners (specifically to handle a given "AESP"), and only if they were insistent on receiving Scientology.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
I did address your point. That there IS a placebo effect is due to random chance and the probability distribution. It is not "boggling". It is a perfectly natural and expected outcome due to the nature of statistics. Overall, people will not get "better" on placebo. Some will -- most won't. To further explain, if a clinical trial is held across many sites, as it usually is, then drugs have succesfully gone to market where at some of these sites the placebo arm has done better that the trial drug arm. This happens at about one in six sites. Nothing "boggling" about it.

Statistical variations confuse many people, especially those who "want to believe" something. I saw an article once that a medic should not have published, but did, entitled "Is Laura cured of HIV?". While making no claims he pointed out that this person had been given anti-retroviral drugs followed by what was either an innoculation against HIV or a placebo and then this person had had no sign of HIV in their system for six months after being taken off all medication. Was this due to an active innoculation or did this person have placebo. They had been given placebo. I was the programmer on this trial and I saw the results after unblinding. Did the placebo somehow "cure" this person? No, this is just a normal outcome due to statistical chance and of no significance.

Tell that to Laura. What you mean is it is of no statistical significance. Perhaps that's true.
 

well_that_sucked

Patron with Honors
R3RA, as named in the Church, is only "unproven" if you disregard the "active ingredient": the method itself. Cognitive flooding, desensitisation, abreaction: these things are the active ingredients (though most scientologists will have no idea what those words mean) from a psychology perspective, and they are both tried and true.

Placebo is effective, as well, and it's not a "trick". It can be used in that manner. Bedside manner induces faith in the practitioner, and this, alone, increases likelihood of positive outcome.

You are right that there can be a variety of reasons that people in a placebo group get better (or worse), and that it's not necessarily just their belief that they will get better. It's tough to isolate.

Ultimately, we agree, I think, that Scientology as a whole system is dangerous to people and even to organizations with which it has interaction. I would steer people clear of the Church at all costs, and only with qualifications would I send people to FreeZoners (specifically to handle a given "AESP"), and only if they were insistent on receiving Scientology.

Who are you to steer anyone anywhere? Especially toward any version of cult tech? How are you qualified to determine which part of the cult tech is safe and which isn't? As it is all fucked, and your posts attempt to mislead people into thinking that in the right hands cult tech will help them. bullshit.

Where are the published studies qualifying any part of cult tech as a benefit? Please include the scientific peer review that corroborates your claims.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
Who are you to steer anyone anywhere? Especially toward any version of cult tech? How are you qualified to determine which part of the cult tech is safe and which isn't? As it is all fucked, and your posts attempt to mislead people into thinking that in the right hands cult tech will help them. bullshit.

Where are the published studies qualifying any part of cult tech as a benefit? Please include the scientific peer review that corroborates your claims.

Who am I? I am me.

There are, of course, no peer reviewed studies of "cult tech". However, there are peer reviewed studies of the active ingredients of R3RA, which are cognitive flooding, abreaction and desensitisation. The parts that are not reviewed, the meter use particularly, is obviously going to be something that won't stand up to review, simply because there haven't been any studies on it.

I'm sorry you are so antagonistic to the benefits that are available from some of the procedures that LRH plagiarized from other, far more reliable and tested sources.
 

well_that_sucked

Patron with Honors
Who am I? I am me.

There are, of course, no peer reviewed studies of "cult tech". However, there are peer reviewed studies of the active ingredients of R3RA, which are cognitive flooding, abreaction and desensitisation. The parts that are not reviewed, the meter use particularly, is obviously going to be something that won't stand up to review, simply because there haven't been any studies on it.

I'm sorry you are so antagonistic to the benefits that are available from some of the procedures that LRH plagiarized from other, far more reliable and tested sources.

"I'm me" isn't good enough when it comes to recommending or defending any flavor of lrh cult tech. This is after all the ex scientologist message board.

I believe lrh cult victims deserve a hell of a lot more than just your opinion, particularly since most were lured by the advice of unqualified persons like yourself.

Being antagonistic toward the cult and its tech, is a far better place than being a sympathizer of anything $cientology, original or extra crispy.

Confirm your claims with the scientific community and then yell eureka, until then you're full of shit.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
Nobody yelling Eureka, here. The discoveries making up R3RA were made around 1893, fundamentally, and then there were successive waves of other elements that were mostly born in the 60/70s (cognitive flooding, etc.).

BTW, I don't recommend R3RA. I simply recognize it as a valuable tool similar to TIR, which has been confirmed in small sample sized experiments and comparative studies.

While we're at it, wts, who the hell are you? You think you are qualified to tell anyone that they are full of shit, simply because you are pissed off? FOAD.
 

well_that_sucked

Patron with Honors
Nobody yelling Eureka, here. The discoveries making up R3RA were made around 1893, fundamentally, and then there were successive waves of other elements that were mostly born in the 60/70s (cognitive flooding, etc.).

BTW, I don't recommend R3RA. I simply recognize it as a valuable tool similar to TIR, which has been confirmed in small sample sized experiments and comparative studies.

While we're at it, wts, who the hell are you? You think you are qualified to tell anyone that they are full of shit, simply because you are pissed off? FOAD.

I was a victim of the cult and a witness to the damage it wreaks on unsuspecting people looking for help.

I am a reader of this board that has shed more than one tear at the pain and suffering experienced by other victims. Offering a sliver of lrh cult tech is too much. You defend what I and the vast majority other victims abhor.

Take your bs claims and go prove them, until then its just more cult crap from an unqualified person that has soul cracking and victimizing on his agenda.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
I make no bs claims, wts. I have no interest in victimizing anyone. It's too bad you can't discuss without making it personal.

I'm not "unqualified", either. I'm certified as a TIR facilitator, and that training is recognized by the APA. I'm a college graduate, and quite capable of examining things and reporting on them. I don't pretend to be an expert on everything, but I have spent a great deal of time studying the arms of psychology concerned with TIR, and correspond a lot with psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers. I don't, as you continue to misrepresent, recommend the use of cult procedures, nor do I have any soul cracking or victimizing agenda.
 

well_that_sucked

Patron with Honors
I make no bs claims, wts. I have no interest in victimizing anyone. It's too bad you can't discuss without making it personal.

I'm not "unqualified", either. I'm certified as a TIR facilitator, and that training is recognized by the APA. I'm a college graduate, and quite capable of examining things and reporting on them. I don't pretend to be an expert on everything, but I have spent a great deal of time studying the arms of psychology concerned with TIR, and correspond a lot with psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers. I don't, as you continue to misrepresent, recommend the use of cult procedures, nor do I have any soul cracking or victimizing agenda.

Odd that a person trained in psychology is here on ESMB, pointing out there's good in lrh cult tech (no matter the source). Have your colleagues at uni verified your findings? Where is their opinion as a result of your studies and investigations? Or did you not show it to them for fear of being laughed out of the room? Or perhaps your dog ate it?

Your story is very convenient and potentially confusing.

You also lie, unless your statement/threat was meant as a sick joke. But really it does not matter, you're just another victim that uses lrh cult tech on others. Further victimizing them.

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=207869&postcount=453
 
That is a statement of "faith". In reality science deals with a limited range of human knowledge. The decision to restrict ones knowledge to that which can be assessed only through empirical means is a matter of "faith".


Mark A. Baker

The decision to rely only on materialism as the only acceptable basis of reason is an act of belief. There is nothing to support it empirically. It is a facet of logic that materialists have traditionally chosen to ignore as it is uncomfortably "metaphysical". :D


Mark A. Baker
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
It also has nothing to do with the fact that our lives have been appreciably improved by technology. You couldn't post that message in this forum without "materialist" internet.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
Odd that a person trained in psychology is here on ESMB, pointing out there's good in lrh cult tech (no matter the source). Have your colleagues at uni verified your findings? Where is their opinion as a result of your studies and investigations? Or did you not show it to them for fear of being laughed out of the room? Or perhaps your dog ate it?

Your story is very convenient and potentially confusing.

You also lie, unless your statement/threat was meant as a sick joke. But really it does not matter, you're just another victim that uses lrh cult tech on others. Further victimizing them.

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=207869&postcount=453

There was no threat. Colleagues at uni? You make wrong assumptions. I'm not working at a "uni", nor am I affiliated with one. I said I was a graduate. I did my thesis on Traumatic Incident Reduction, and it was received very well, thanks. My story was convenient for me to tell, yes, and confusing to you, but I imagine most others got it just fine. I don't use "lrh cult tech", nor do I victimize anyone. However, you are free to continue making false assertions. I'll just keep pointing out that they're false! The fact that you thought I was serious about making an army of zombies with cracked souls just shows you might have missed your meds. Perhaps you needed a longer vacation.
 
It also has nothing to do with the fact that our lives have been appreciably improved by technology. You couldn't post that message in this forum without "materialist" internet.


False dichotomy. Openness to transcendental realities does not require disregarding the use of empiricism. :)

The nice thing about the study of logic and philosophy is it exposes the utilities & limitations of differing forms of human knowledge without requiring adherence to a particular dogma.


Mark A. Baker
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
I'm not trying to set up a false dichotomy. You and I have been down this road before. While I acknowledge the existence of subjectively experienced states which can be reported as "reality", and have experienced themselves, I don't see them as relevant to "Theta's Conquest of MEST", which I consider to be our primary mission, the one that will set us free to finally pursue the transcendental realities without interference or concern.
 
I'm not trying to set up a false dichotomy. You and I have been down this road before. While I acknowledge the existence of subjectively experienced states which can be reported as "reality", and have experienced themselves, I don't see them as relevant to "Theta's Conquest of MEST", which I consider to be our primary mission, the one that will set us free to finally pursue the transcendental realities without interference or concern.


And therein lies a key difference. I'm more aligned with Buddhist thought in considering such a "conquest" as at best a distraction and quite possibly the "source of the problem".:)


Mark A. Baker
 
Top