This is similar to something I wrote about Scientologists back in the day. The same phenomena occurs with anti-Scientologists, as well. It has to do with thinking with an ideology that does not contain the concept the ideologue is being presented with to understand.
Way back in 2013 I noticed, in dealing with Scientologists on the Internet:
I’ve seen it now. It is unmistakable.
It works like this: You present an idea that has NOTHING to do with Scientology, and the Scientologist must relate it to something in Scientology to “understand” what you are talking about.
Example: I wrote something on an Internet forum frequented by Scientologists called “Theoretical Constructs vs. Actual Facts”. I wanted to make the point that facts are different from the conclusions which evolve from thinking about them.
For instance, the concept of “Imperialism” comes from observing nations setting up colonies all around the world.
Colonies are a fact. You can point to them. You can visit them and even touch parts of them. They exist in time and space.
Imperialism, however, is a theoretical construct used to explain those facts.
Imperialism does not exist in a way that can be proven and touched like facts can. Imperialism is something that exists only in our heads. It is used to think about and explain the facts of colonies. The concept of Imperialism contains certain conclusions and comments and attitudes which may or may not be related to a colony as it really exists.
I wanted to make the point that if you fill your head with unprovable theoretical constructs, not grounded in facts, then your reasoning suffers. I gave example after example. I showed how substituting facts for theoretical constructs leads to more accurate conclusions in the reasoning process. And I showed that if you use theoretical constructs to do all your thinking for you – without being continually grounded in facts – you go off the rails.
This is a pretty simple concept, really.
Right?
I watched one Scientologist after another come in and relate this to Scientology thought patterns – one after the other.
“Oh, I get it. Like the physical universe vs. the theta universe!”
“It’s like Mass vs. significance!”
“Theory vs. Practical!”
Or “Para-Scientology vs. Scientology!”
It was endless. Only one Scientologist got it. It was this guy from Norway named Geir. Every single other Scientologist could not understand this concept outside of something in Scientology. And therefore, since this concept does not exist in Scientology, they never understood it.
And I saw: This is what makes Scientologists stupid.
Their thinking must follow only certain patterns and never others.
If a unique concept is not mentioned in Scientology, then the Scientologist must change the concept to fit into their existing Scientology thinking patterns, rather than adapting their thinking to the unique concept so as to understand it as itself.
