Well, I wouldn't call me a "True Believer", but I would say it is currently the paradigm with which I agree consistently. I find it logically consistent and satisfying, and I think that putting problems in its terms generally tends to imply solutions to those problems which can then be checked "in session", or more broadly, through scientific study of statistical success. No, I have not conducted scientific studies: I lack the resources and credentials.
I appreciate your statement, here. I wasn't actually offended, but I was worried that I had offended posters here. My own enthusiasm often translates as large quantities of posts, and that quantity can easily be interpreted as an intent to overwhelm objections through volume. I would like to state that it is not my intent to overwhelm anyone, I am just "white and nerdy" and have a lot of free time to post right now.
At any rate, I think you'd be right to say that Dr. Gerbode did NOT create the steps of TIR. Representations to that effect, IMO, are PR. I think it would be accurate to say he developed TIR, which is how I'll have to make sure I say it, in the future. I mean this in the sense that he took steps of a procedure (R3R, not trying to dodge this), created a theory about why they "work" (when they work) to help a person reduce cognitive distortion, desensitize emotional reactions, produce personal insight and help the person return their attention/intention ("ability") to whatever they are working on in the present.
Oh, and regarding crediting Hubbard, Scientology, and the various people who contributed to its processes, Gerbode did this in his book. Due to the manner in which people react to the terms Scientology, Scientologist, Hubbard, Dianetics, Reactive Mind, Engram, Auditing, etc., I think you could easily understand why he wouldn't want to open every conversation, presentation, article, etc., with "I was once a Scientologist, TIR contains steps that are identical to many of the steps in Dianetics, etc.". Technically, there are significant differences between R3R and TIR, particularly where you are "preassessing" an item and getting it in "runnable" form, but also including no requirement for needle reactions (though you COULD use a meter, TIR is designed for use without it), and if I got out the two and compared them, I'm pretty sure I'd find more differences. FUNCTIONALLY, what is accomplished by performing the steps should be identical (person reviews an incident or chain of incidents and clears it of charge). That said, terminological differences are indicative of actual differences of meaning. Charge has a different definition in Metapsychology than it does in Scientology (and in my opinion, a far more elegant one). Reactive Mind has different meaning than Traumatic Incident Network, due to the many different (and operationally meaningless) definitions Hubbard used. I could go on, but the point is simple: while there are some steps that are identical to R3R in TIR, and between some other procedures (definitely not all, and definitely not their organization and theory), protocols are wildly different, results are not hyped, methods ARE tested scientifically prior to making any claims for them (other than that outcomes are interesting, and what the THEORY predicts the results should be), some methods have been de-emphasized and are under review because the expected results are not uniformly delivered and the reasons why have not been determined. The organizations of metapsychology exist to connect facilitators and trainers with interested public (including oversight agencies like the American Psychological Association and the National Association of Social Workers), to train new facilitators and trainers. They do NOT exist to destroy critics, smash anyone's name into history (the subject is multi-authored), dominate anyone, make huge quantities of money, etc.
What a twist on the truth!!
