How Hubbard created a 100% workable technology

[lionheart]

What I know of hypnotism I got from seeing people being hypnotised - on stage shows, in transformation groups, in religious ecstacy groups, in people in terror, and so on; and also from sreading texts on the subjects. Nowhere have I ever heard the weak focussed attention you talk about being included as hypnotism. That is your own loose definitioon which serves you in that you can attach a big word onto the mild or avid interest that people show in Scientology.

ref: HCOP/L on Propaganda by redefinition of words. It is relevant here.

As regards your argument - You brought to our attention an experiment where by way of random selection various choices were made, a person's attention was focussed on those choices which suited the experiment (with the exclusion of other evidence) and the subject was then persuaded to believe that there was a method by which horse race winners could be selected accurately and she then wasted some money on that. You then alleged that Scientologists were all hoodwinked in this same manner.

I think that is an accurate depiction of your argument.

I suggest that whereas it may be true that some or even many people were gulled into Scientology in this was it yet did not apply to all Scientologists.

You cannot accept this. "If it is true for you it has to be true for everyone else" seems to be the viewpoint you are defending. That this happens to be the exact viewpoint you claim the CofS is using escapes you.

If you read what I said, you'll see I said Hubbard used suggestion and expectation. I didn't say LRH used hypnotism. I used Derren Brown's theory about stage hynotism to give examples of suggestion and expectation.

Although I agree with Alanzo's ideas about hypnotism, these days I personally don't use it to describe any aspect of Scientology because it stirs up too much misunderstanding and protest. Alanzo has explained his ideas as to the reason for this, but that is his conversation, not mine.

I think I've described expectation and suggestion quite thoroughly with examples as to how it applies to Scn, but I'm happy to give some more examples if you haven't understood me yet. Scientology is littered with suggestion and the generation of expectation.

I have no particular problem with your idea about "many people" being "gulled" into Scn. It doesn't alter my argument about the money pyramid aspect of Hubbard's scam, except you are restricting it to "many people" rather than all. Ok, so what proportion do you think were not scammed? And how do you define their experience compared to my theory of expectation and suggestion? And how does their experience relate to my theory of the importance of disconnecion and preventing people from seeing the failures?

I'm quite happy to hear counter arguments so long as they are discussing what I'm actually saying. We seem to be getting on that track now.

BTW Alex, I believe you know perfectly well that I am willing to discuss my ideas, expand them and consider counter ideas. I believe you know that, which is why you aren't engaging in real discussion and exchange of ideas about what I'm saying. Egging someone else on, rather than engaging yourself, is a bit OSA "Op"y isn't it? Are you slipping back into your old ways again?

[Leon]

You're being disingenuous. Look at this from your first post on this thread:

See, it is simply a numbers game, the oldest con trick in the book and we, I'm afraid, fell for it. We are the tip of the pyramid, the ones who experienced what Ron said we would experience just like the lady in the TV program.

Remember, also that Hubbard had studied hypnotism/suggestion and by all accounts was a charismatic personality. He must have known the simple datum that if you tell a group of people something with enough conviction and throw in a bit of suggestible language, that a percentage of them will experience that thing as being true for them.

It is a limited view, numbers con with a heavy dose of suggestion thrown in.

Right in there you have that it is a con, a numbers game, and a a "heavy dose of suggestion" to the point of being hypnotic. (Why else refer to hypnotism at all if not to suggest it to us, just as you say Hubbard is doing.)

What you discount totally - since it does not fit in with what you want your readers to buy into - is that a technology of the mind is possible and that Hubbard may have been onto something and that thousands of people may have experienced huge life-changing benefits from that technology.

Just as you complain of recalcitrant people being routed off-lines from Scientology because it would muddy the image they wanted to present, so exactly do you seek to eliminate all who would say there is some validity to Scientology. As you accuse, so you expose your own false argument.

Sure there have been many thousands of people who had a bum deal in Scientology. I can accept that. Clearly you cannot accept that as many thousands got great benefit from it and continue to do so every day.

It is you, and those like you, who needs to open your eyes to the bigger picture and get a more balanced view of things.

[alex]

snip





BTW Alex, I believe you know perfectly well that I am willing to discuss my ideas, expand them and consider counter ideas. I believe you know that, which is why you aren't engaging in real discussion and exchange of ideas about what I'm saying. Egging someone else on, rather than engaging yourself, is a bit OSA "Op"y isn't it? Are you slipping back into your old ways again?

I have the heart of a troll. I love to provoke. Yes.

Its play. Play is serious business.

I am not really interested in debating you on the issue at hand. Its really more an issue of belief. You believe its a con and look for ways to prove it.

I say if its a con, it moved me along the path to enlightenment.

Scientology is not an end in itself, nor any sort of ultimate philosophy, but a bridge from one context to another.

If someone builds a better bridge or maybe builds airplanes to make the metaphorical travel, all the better.

But it hasnt happened yet and I know whats on both sides.

I dont want to tear down the bridge and go back to the dark ages.

I dont see any other uniformly workable solution yet otherwise.

And I take hubbard at his word(s).

alex

[Hanover Fist]

You're being disingenuous. Look at this from your first post on this thread:





Right in there you have that it is a con, a numbers game, and a a "heavy dose of suggestion" to the point of being hypnotic. (Why else refer to hypnotism at all if not to suggest it to us, just as you say Hubbard is doing.)

What you discount totally - since it does not fit in with what you want your readers to buy into - is that a technology of the mind is possible and that Hubbard may have been onto something and that thousands of people may have experienced huge life-changing benefits from that technology.

So what is the problem with this? I think this is what most critics ARE saying about scientology/Hubbard. There is no technology of the mind and the only thing Hubbard was onto was his ego trip and a con game. I also think that LH has also explained in excruciating detail why it is immaterial that "thousands may have experienced huge life-changing benefits". How many millions have not? You HAVE to look at the bigger picture rather than losing the forest for the trees.

Just as you complain of recalcitrant people being routed off-lines from Scientology because it would muddy the image they wanted to present, so exactly do you seek to eliminate all who would say there is some validity to Scientology. As you accuse, so you expose your own false argument.

That is quite simply not true. The relative few that have experienced an unbroken (relatively) series of gains is an integral part of LH's argument. It is only when you look at the distribution of failures vs. successes that the pattern emerges.


Hanover Fist

[alex]

snip

It is only when you look at the distribution of failures vs. successes that the pattern emerges.


Hanover Fist

Would you care to share your peer reviewed data on this with us?

alex

[Hanover Fist]

Would you care to share your peer reviewed data on this with us?

alex

Let me rephrase lest you misunderstand:

It is only when you begin to look at the ratio of successes vs failures that the pattern begins to develop.

Is that any better for you? LH's point still stands.

Hanover Fist

[lionheart]

You're being disingenuous. Look at this from your first post on this thread:





Right in there you have that it is a con, a numbers game, and a a "heavy dose of suggestion" to the point of being hypnotic. (Why else refer to hypnotism at all if not to suggest it to us, just as you say Hubbard is doing.)

What you discount totally - since it does not fit in with what you want your readers to buy into - is that a technology of the mind is possible and that Hubbard may have been onto something and that thousands of people may have experienced huge life-changing benefits from that technology.

Just as you complain of recalcitrant people being routed off-lines from Scientology because it would muddy the image they wanted to present, so exactly do you seek to eliminate all who would say there is some validity to Scientology. As you accuse, so you expose your own false argument.

Sure there have been many thousands of people who had a bum deal in Scientology. I can accept that. Clearly you cannot accept that as many thousands got great benefit from it and continue to do so every day.

It is you, and those like you, who needs to open your eyes to the bigger picture and get a more balanced view of things.

Thanks for referring me back to my first post. Sorry, my mistake. I'm happy to consider the word hypnotism be taken out of it. Please consider the paragraph to be corrected to say:
Remember, also that Hubbard had studied suggestion and by all accounts was a charismatic personality. He must have known the simple datum that if you tell a group of people something with enough conviction and throw in a bit of suggestible language, that a percentage of them will experience that thing as being true for them.

I didn't however say "heavy dose of suggestion to the point of being hypnotic". Those are your words not mine. I simply said Hubbard studied hypnotism - which is well documented. The point I tried to make is that hypnotism is not what people generally take it to be and I gave Derren Brown's analysis of it to explain that idea.

But I am happy for any impression that Hubbard used hypnotism to be taken out of my argument. My argument is complete as it is using simply the words suggestion and expectation.

I hope I have clarified that and it is not necessary for me to repeat that again.

Your other points have been well covered by HF's replies, there is no need for me to repeat what I've already said.

If you don't agree, that's fine by me. Remember the lady with the winning system would not have believed it was a con if anyone had told her. But you don't think you are in that situation - so ok. Thanks for your input.

[lionheart]

I have the heart of a troll. I love to provoke. Yes.

Its play. Play is serious business.

I am not really interested in debating you on the issue at hand. Its really more an issue of belief. You believe its a con and look for ways to prove it.

I say if its a con, it moved me along the path to enlightenment.

Scientology is not an end in itself, nor any sort of ultimate philosophy, but a bridge from one context to another.

If someone builds a better bridge or maybe builds airplanes to make the metaphorical travel, all the better.

But it hasnt happened yet and I know whats on both sides.

I dont want to tear down the bridge and go back to the dark ages.

I dont see any other uniformly workable solution yet otherwise.

And I take hubbard at his word(s).

alex

A typical synthetic Scientology personality.

But I know that is really not you, because I too once had that Hubbard implanted personality. May it drop from you like melting ice and your heart be thawed!

I love the real you, minus Hubbard's implantology.

[pomfritz]

Scientology works, just like placebos work.

Neither works 100% of the time, and the ones it does have the desired effect will swear by it.

[Leon]

Thanks for referring me back to my first post. Sorry, my mistake. I'm happy to consider the word hypnotism be taken out of it. Please consider the paragraph to be corrected to say:
Remember, also that Hubbard had studied suggestion and by all accounts was a charismatic personality. He must have known the simple datum that if you tell a group of people something with enough conviction and throw in a bit of suggestible language, that a percentage of them will experience that thing as being true for them.

I didn't however say "heavy dose of suggestion to the point of being hypnotic". Those are your words not mine. I simply said Hubbard studied hypnotism - which is well documented. The point I tried to make is that hypnotism is not what people generally take it to be and I gave Derren Brown's analysis of it to explain that idea.

But I am happy for any impression that Hubbard used hypnotism to be taken out of my argument. My argument is complete as it is using simply the words suggestion and expectation.

So then what your argument comes down to is plain advertising. Normal everyday advertising does all of what you complain about above in Hubbard.