Skeptics and Believers → Discussion•
Scientology vs psychology: why?


chetmoAug 22, 2007 8:37pm
If you have read any of L.Ron Hubbard's books (or alleged works, as it's not certain some haven't been ghosted..), then you know he had the knife particularly sharpened for the fields of psychology and psychiatry. In Battlefield Earth and his (alleged) Mission: Earth series, he pretty much accuses psychiatrists of causing the Jewish Holocaust..

Now, I respect the rights of others to have their opinions and beliefs. But, I regularly exercise my right to critical reason in examining those beliefs and my right to express my beliefs, opinions, and thoughts on the subject.

Anyway, I have always wondered exactly what "Elron" had against the field. It's not like psychology is totally defensible, but to accuse them with such venom....

Sponsor
rivalarrivalAug 23, 2007 11:57am
Psychiatrists and Psychologists recognize Scientology's operating methods as brainwashing. The cult not only targets emotionally and mentally injured individuals, it exaggerates and enhances those injuries.

The "personality test" - one of the major entrance points into the cult - is designed not to objectively evaluate a person's personality, but to convince the individual that it can accurately determine personality flaws. The proctor can then move to his sales pitch and offer expensive auditing as a treatment.

Psychiatry and Psychology have the capacity to assist Scientology recruits - but when these recruits recognize that the cult is exploiting their mental status, they jump ship. Condemning mental health practitioners is a survival mechanism for the cult. To ensure its continued ability to exploit its members, they poison the well of all alternatives.

They act similarly toward FreeZoners ("squirrels" as they call them) who practice Scientology outside of the cult's influence.

The entire cult is wrapped up in this paranoia. Their official policy in dealing with criticism is an ad hominem attack on the opponent. Discredit the opponent by accusing him of crimes. THIS IS STATED POLICY, WRITTEN BY ELRON HIMSELF.

The Policy Letter

You can see this in action on youtube. Video Here

I wrote a short article about this on thejesusmyth.org - find it Here

chetmoAug 23, 2007 6:50pm
The thing is; you can also argue that psychology is a cult, or a series of cults. Have you ever talked to a Behaviorist? I had a session with one once.. I had the hardest time trying to convince him that I didn't think about how others saw me, because it didn't matter to me. The thought of an adult not living for the opinion of others shocked him.

It's the same way with all the branches: smug satisfaction in their being right, and utter contempt or disbelief at the idea that anyone can disagree.

L.Ron did have one valid point (though it's quite a stretch..), the I.G. Farben connection: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben]

As they were the largest chemical and pharmaceutical company of Germany, it would instill distrust of such companies...

Sponsor
VortexfugueAug 23, 2007 6:54pm
I don't consider psychology a science, psychiatry I do. Psychology is more akin to sociology.

MarywhalenAug 23, 2007 6:57pm
In my experience, psychologists and psychiatrists are all crackpots

chetmoAug 23, 2007 7:00pm
Well, I can't totally discredit psychiatry, as it's related to neuro-biology and I'm quite the fan of Steven Pinker...

MarywhalenAug 23, 2007 7:32pm
That's just my experience, and what I got out of them, which was all BS

Sponsor
rivalarrivalAug 23, 2007 9:29pm
3: I can understand your point. I don't completely agree with it - psychiatry and psychology as fields keep records and adjust treatment protocols based on new theories. Peer review is encouraged. Any scientist can possess and support a theory that is ultimately demonstrated to be false or inaccurate - the willingness to adjust old theories and adopt new theories in light of valid evidence is the mark of the scientist and the bane of the mystic.

An individual psychologist would have to both ignore the predominant theories of his field AND ignore valid criticism of his alternative theories AND negligently (or purposefully) cause harm to his clients in order for me to consider him a cultist. (Incidental harm wouldn't meet the criteria - experiments occasionally harm the test subjects through no fault of the experimenter)

Scientology doesn't allow for changes to the underlying theory of Dianetics and it does not objectively track its results. Peer Review is prohibited.

Now, I won't put the state of psychiatry and psychology in the same category as, say, Mathematics, Physics or Chemistry. It's not a "hard" science, at least not at this point. But to equate it with a faith-based "Religion" is probably an over reaction.

5: Counseling, group therapy, etc are a crock, in my opinion. I have some significant problems with a lot of the treatments performed by shrinks, and I trust the medications more than the people prescribing them... (At least the medications had to go through some sort of peer-reviewed testing and experimentation process, and the pharmaceutical companies have no incentive to intentionally create a harmful drug that will eventually get them sued... I don't trust the companies to look out for MY best interests, but I do trust them to look out for their best interests)

MarywhalenAug 23, 2007 9:49pm
Oh yes, I definitely agree with you there

utlanOct 24, 2007 4:51am
maybe the scientologists don't get on with the psychologist because they're compeating with them for the money of crazy people


Scientology vs psychology: why?

You need to Sign-up for StumbleUpon to post to this forum