Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: "brainwashing", "Hypnotism", myths, facts, and how it relates to Scientology

  1. #1
    Patron with Honors
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    110

    Default "brainwashing", "Hypnotism", myths, facts, and how it relates to Scientology

    A thread popped up on whyweprotest today that reminded me of a thread I composed a long time ago. It's strictly theoretical, based on my knowledge of social psychology, but I never got the feedback I was looking for. I've never been a member of Scientology, so I was hoping someone could confirm or refute my assumptions about how people are 'lured in', and tell me whether this information resonated with them.

    Here's the link. I understand it's a bit long ('tl;dr'), and that some of it is fairly dense, but I've tried to write in a way that's accessible to everyone. I am looking for serious feedback, as firsthand accounts may help me sharpen this into a coherent essay that may help to innoculate the public at large and liberate members of Scientology from the psychological stranglehold.

  2. #2
    True Ex-Scientologist programmer_guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    6,944

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Consensus
    Brainwashing is a word thrown around often on these forums. Unfortunately, there's a popular viewpoint in our society that imagines brainwashing as a form of drugging or hypnotism.
    Not necessarily. I think that Bob Penny made some good points in his essay on this subject. Please read this.
    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/Xenu/scs.html

    Quote Originally Posted by Consensus
    It's also important to note that anybody can be brainwashed - regardless of intelligence.
    I agree with this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Consensus
    In fact, I've read some reports that imply intelligent people are MORE vulnerable.
    I don't know about that BUT I think that this is usually a case of being young and naive.
    The rest of the post is far to academic in terminology to be real and down-to-earth.
    The emphasis on finding and describing "knowledge structures" that are somewhere "inside" the individual encourages us to overlook the fact that human cognition is always situated in a complex sociocultural world and cannot be unaffected by it. - Edwin Hutchins
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hutchins

  3. #3
    Patron with Honors
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by programmer_guy View Post
    Not necessarily. I think that Bob Penny made some good points in his essay on this subject. Please read this.
    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/Xenu/scs.html



    I agree with this.



    I don't know about that BUT I think that this is usually a case of being young and naive.
    The rest of the post is far to academic in terminology to be real and down-to-earth.
    I can't say I can support that claim. I will say, LRH takes advantage of well-meaning people. If you're a cynic, and believe there are truly evil people out there, you're unlikely to fall for Scientology. But if you're a happy-go-lucky person that believes 'everyone is basically good', his argument that man is basically good will resonate with you (It's worth mentioning that he is definitely not the first to propose the idea, and hundreds of famous philosophers throughout history argue for that point, where LRH claims to be the first). Furthermore, once you buy into it, you will be hard-pressed to question Scientology, because to accept that you've been lied to all along is to accept that some people really ARE assholes. 'Cause if you're in, that's the facts of the matter - either LRH is right, or he's an outright fucking asshole. And if you don't believe in outright fucking assholes, he's 100% infallible!

  4. Likes Gadfly liked this post
  5. #4
    True Ex-Scientologist programmer_guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    6,944

    Default

    Okay, what's your take on Bob Penny's essay?
    The emphasis on finding and describing "knowledge structures" that are somewhere "inside" the individual encourages us to overlook the fact that human cognition is always situated in a complex sociocultural world and cannot be unaffected by it. - Edwin Hutchins
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hutchins

  6. #5
    Patron with Honors
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by programmer_guy View Post
    Okay, what's your take on Bob Penny's essay?
    Sorry, I'm drunk. I'll read it tomorrow and comment.

  7. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    In a cluster of other thetans, electronically attached to MEST
    Posts
    1,869

    Default

    If you are familiar with Timothy Leary's "Eight Circuit Model of Consciousness" and/or Robert Anton Wilson's refinement of it (which I prefer), it should make sense...

    IMO, the de-imprinting/re-imprinting process is one that should be, more or less, a solo endeavor.

    But then, we are all where we are for a reason and learning from it, so...

  8. Likes Lermanet_com, Gadfly liked this post
  9. #7
    Gold Meritorious Patron
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,267

    Default

    So guys stand up at graduation and talk about "wins" they've had which they never really had. They just persuade themeslves that they did.

    Is that the extent of the hypnotism in Scio you're talking about or is there more?

  10. #8
    Sponsor Veda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    13,170

    Default

    Scientology's responses to the accusation that Scientology is brainwashing have had some moderate successes.

    One approach has been to select one piece of Scientology, or one piece of its "tech," and demonstrate that that piece (presented as being representative of the whole) is not brainwashing. Any number of benign common-sense ideas or actions, adopted by Scientology, can be presented as Scientology, thus "disproving" the accusation that Scientology is [fill in any negative accusation to be "disproved"].

    Another approach is to make the subject of brainwashing about the word "brainwashing," and enter into a seemingly unresolvable debate about the meaning of the word. Since there are multiple definitions for the word "brainwashing" (as there are with the word "hypnosis"), an examination of the actions involved in what might be classified as brainwashing is avoided.

    Origin of the word, "brainwashing":

    http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/bra...-the-term.html

    One way to side step the Scientological ploy of having a tiny piece of Scientology, or its "tech," presented as reflective of the totality of the subject or its "tech," or the ploy of making an attempted examination of the action of brainwashing, not about actions, but about the word "brainwashing," is to go directly to a 64 page booklet that L. Ron Hubbard, himself, called the 'Brainwashing Manual'.

    Suddenly, the discussion becomes about something definite, at which point one can watch the Scientologists squirm, if one if so inclined, but beware, Scientology's #1 tactic is trickery (angles, ploys, gimmicks, capers, etc., used consciously or unconsciously), and an attempt will likely be made to shift the discussion back to demonstrating one thing as representing the whole, or shift the discussion back to the meaning of the word, with the meaning usually being either "almost everything is brainwashing," or "brainwashing? That occurs with pain and drugs, Mr. Hubbard wrote about that, it's 'Pain-Drug-Hypnosis', and in Scientology, drugs are not used," etc.

    It's best to be familiar with the (secretly authored Hubbard booklet) 'Brainwashing', as a tiny fraction of the text mentions (in no detail, but with great bombast) "PDH," and also shock treatment and lobotomy. And, typically, if a Scientologist has any response at all, it will be that the 'Brainwashing Manual' is about "PDH," etc., at which point it becomes necessary to remind the Scientologist that less than a page is concerned with such matters, leaving the bulk of the manual describing other things - Other things that, if one can keep the Scientologist from placing his fingers in his ears and shouting, "nanananana!" or simply running away, can be - point by point - shown to be part of the subject and practice of Scientology, with the seemingly benign parts of Scientology functioning as both a deceptive lead-in, and as a reassuring medium though which that "brainwashing" can occur.

    http://warrior.xenu.ca/Brainwashing-front.jpg

    http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost....36&postcount=1

  11. Likes Lermanet_com liked this post
  12. #9
    Unbeliever uniquemand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    North Kingstown, RI
    Posts
    8,944

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Björkist View Post
    If you are familiar with Timothy Leary's "Eight Circuit Model of Consciousness" and/or Robert Anton Wilson's refinement of it (which I prefer), it should make sense...

    IMO, the de-imprinting/re-imprinting process is one that should be, more or less, a solo endeavor.

    But then, we are all where we are for a reason and learning from it, so...

    I'm quite familiar with Leary and Wilson, and I agree that they are fascinating, but I disagree with the idea that de-imprinting should be done solo, although, in a pinch, if you must, well, go for it.

    Similar to the old phrase:

    "He who has himself for a lawyer has a fool for a lawyer", change out lawyer with auditor, and you are pretty much in the same boat. However, sometimes any auditing is better than none. If even a fool could do it, then go for it. If they couldn't, steer clear.

    As for re-imprinting, that should be avoided altogether.

  13. #10
    Sponsor Veda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    13,170

    Default

    Leary, Wilson, de Ropp, and others have some interesting observations re. de-imprinting/re-imprinting, etc. When used in a discussion of Scientology and "brainwashing," bringing up these theories is an excellent example of the "almost everything is brainwashing" response. See how it safely navigates around the issue of Scientology and "brainwashing"? And it's quite interesting, in itself, also.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. "Crimes" or "wrong doings" within the CofS?
    By Carmel in forum Staff "War Stories"
    Replies: 284
    Last Post: 6th November 2016, 10:08 AM
  2. Replies: 68
    Last Post: 26th July 2014, 05:19 AM
  3. "Upstat" vs. "Downstat"
    By grundy in forum Grundy's Guide to Scientology
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 6th February 2013, 08:08 PM
  4. "Postulating" / "Wins"
    By TomatoTester in forum Evaluating and Criticising Scientology
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 15th September 2012, 06:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •