Talk:Dianetics/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Dianetics. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

Latest comment: 19 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

I agree with the above, but I don't know how to change. It should not present the subject in a form that only practictioners or students could agree with; it should present the subject in a form that everyone could (if grudgingly) agree with. To learn how this is possible and desirable, see neutral point of view. --LMS

LMS, Here are some ideas on how you can change the article. See if they make sense to you. For the record your article is NOT from the neutral point of view you linked us to. Just ask yourself, "Why did I write it?"

I would like to see an actual neutral article, that allows space for pro and con discussion. It should be written by someone competent in the subject like encyclopedic articles normally are.

I would take your article as written and place 98% of it with the con portion. You have apparently "defined" Dianetics but have failed to point out the key ideas that distinguish Dianetics, and make it singular among the sciences, philosophies and religions. Dianetics addresses the viewpoint of "the individual", not the viewpoint of the body only. We can say, "awareness of awareness unit" or spirit or soul, but practically speaking Dianetics means someone is talking with YOU, the individual. Or YOU are speaking with another YOU when you apply Dianetics. If this doesn't happen, it is NOT Dianetics. It's what YOU are doing to the body.

Second point, Dianetics says "the mind is visible". Amongst all the sciences Dianetics says the mind is visible. YOU can see it. Maybe I can't show you mine and you can't show me yours, but the owner of that mind CAN perceive anything there. That is the key, the owner can observe it. It can be; observed, seen, heard, felt, touched. Any perception can be perceived. It can be examined. You can measure the resistance with an ohm meter and detect if there are stresses brought to mind with a memory. You can estimate how much stress by how much the ohm meter changes when YOU recall the memory. You can measure how much relief by how much the resistance in the memories have changed. Here is a demonstration of observing the mind. If I say to you, "Think of a cat". You can see a cat in your mind. If I say "To feel its warmth in your arms like you are right there in that moment feeling the original sensation." You can answer if you can feel the cat. Now if I ask, "Who is looking at that thought of a cat?" You might say, "ME". That is "the awareness of awareness unit" talked about in Dianetics books. The one that looks at the mind. YOU can examine the mind. What other science enables you to do that directly? All, and I repeat ALL of YOUR experience is available right there in your mind. People and events around you can bring any or all of it back to mind, just like I did. Now everything "your body" experienced is there to. But these are two completely different sets of memories. One is YOUR experience and one was made by the body. Physiological approaches to the mind can only address what the body has experienced. That is an entirely different set, a second set as I said, of memory records recorded by the body. Dianetics addresses YOU. YOU are the seat of intelligence. Other subjects address only the records available to the brain or the body and thus "ignore" YOU. So that is why there is so much conflict in all this. Dianetics addresses only the Spirit, the memories the Spirit made, and the Spirit's ability to heal the body, to increase IQ, and to improve personality. The other so called mental studies only address the physiology of the body and memories of the body. So if a person trained in those subjects tests Dianetics, he misses the first and second most important factors, the individual himself, the spiritual part and the mind that is owned by that spirit. When the actual spirit and actual memories are addressed the IQ does change, the body does get healed, the personality does change.

You have written your whole article as if these two key ideas, these first principles, were not known to you. You have missed the whole point of Dianetics, just like the people in the test reports and the reference sites I reviewed. LLH --207.69.138.12 21:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

As it happens. I do. Being a practitioner (Auditor) for over 20 years, I have pretty good idea of what Dianetics is all about and what it does, and doesn't do. OTOH, having been exposed to the rants (in writing and verbally) of many rabid opponents, I have a pretty good idea of what their counterclaims are. Will be some weeks, probably, before I can have my version ready and posted. Meanwhile, if someone else can do a good job, that's fine. -- Jason Scribner

Jason, here is my version posted today. LLH---207.69.138.199 22:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

“Dianetics is an adventure.”

So reads the very first line, page one, of L. Ron Hubbard’s, “Dianetics” book, released to the broad public in 1950. Estimates of 150,000 to 500,000 copies were sold in that first year, and 20 to 30 million have been sold as of this writing. Thousands of men and women just like you and I, quietly sat down and read the book, sat down with a friend and began the adventure. They had their friend recall things people told them they couldn’t. They began to believe an individual can do something about the problem of the mind and Life itself. Then the “you know what” hit the fan.

So what is it all about? The best place to start is still; to get a copy of Dianetics and the other basic Dianetics books, sit down and quietly read them for yourself. There are tapes and CDs and DVDs available to help. Think it though for yourself. Define the words. Try the techniques with a friend. Test it personally. Review the test data in Science of Survival. Dianetics says the mind is visible and the individual can see his own mind. Is this true? Is it worth knowing? Dianetics has to do with what soul or you, are doing to the body through the mind. Can this be demonstrated as true? What if someone else said the mind is electrical signals in the brain? Is it true the mind is only chemicals and brain cells? Then take up the issue of the critics if you wish, that may have read less and understand less and be less well informed than you.

Read what the critics have to say. Some have included their comments on this very page, attaching links and in Discussion area attached. The American Medical Association (AMA) was shaken to its very core by this book. It has remained one of the most outspoken and at the same time one of the most devious critics of the subject. Decide for yourself, are they protecting billions in income or just nobly defending the good name that medical science has made for itself the world?

The adventure began in 1950 for the broad public, but Dianetics had been released in 1947 to the medical and scientific communities. This release is available in bookstores as “Dianetics the Original Thesis” or “the Dynamics of Life.” It began much earlier for L. Ron Hubbard. By 1938 his inquiring mind had formulated THE basic principle of Life, which later became the first axiom of what is now known as Dianetics, man’s most advanced science of the mind. He called it “The Dynamic Principle of Existence.” It says what Life is doing. It was intended as a statement of what he believed was a natural law newly discovered. It was intended as a starting point. His unpublished manuscript was called, “Excaliber”. The idea was that the scope of power to be released by this new discovery was unknown but like the dream of Excaliber was certain to be worth knowing.

Dianetics has been under continuous development since before that first discovery in 1938 with books, tapes, Congresses and bulletins released at milestones along the way. The first “clears” were made early in 1947. The same methods used then can be used to produce clears today. They had lots of abilities but the common factor was “No longer had their own reactive mind.” The book “Dianetics, The Evolution of a Science” describes how it came about in detail. Now instead of expecting “normal” behavior was elevated to the sanity level expected was that of the clear.

In 1951 the book, “The Science of Survival” summarizes tests conducted by and with the strictest psychological methods. (Issue 6 has it, some may not.) It also discusses important developments in the “Tone Scale”; a scale of human emotions or survival level, that can used to predict human behavior. “Self Analysis” tells about specific methods the individual can safely use to adventure into the mind. The book “Dianetics 55” discusses how you might prove the spiritual nature of man. How does this spiritual nature create the energy patterns we know as the human mind? (Chapters 2 and 3) Why is Dianetics best described as, “What the soul is doing to the body through the mind.” Engram Running by Chains was released in the early 60s and Precision Dianetics in 1969. Standard Dianetics was released in 1970 and the book, “Dianetics Today” in 1975. Since then New Era Dianetics has been released on tapes and bulletins.

Should a “science” begin with an hypothesis like “The Dynamic Principle of Existence” and evolve laws similar to Newton’s Laws? Should these attempts to state and describe the underlying natural laws of Life be stated as axioms as in Mathematics? You can read quietly and decide for yourself.

Should you join a Dianetics Group or an “I want to go Clear” club?

The last line of the Dianetics book reads, “For God’s sake, get busy and build a better bridge!”

One of the most important things one can decide in an adventurous world is whether they are adventurous enough to join in. Are you going to do something about it?

207.69.138.199, I'd like to ask you a question. When was the last time you read any encyclopedia article that included direct instructions to the reader? "Think it though for yourself. Define the words. Try the techniques with a friend. Test it personally. Review the test data in Science of Survival." When was the last time you read any encyclopedia article that presumed to make the reader's value judgements. "One of the most important things one can decide in an adventurous world is whether they are adventurous enough to join in." I'm afraid that if you don't correct some of your misunderstoods about what Wikipedia is, and what Wikipedia is not, you're both going to cause and experience a great deal of frustration writing lots of text that just couldn't be accepted into Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Anaeus Feldspar, thank you for your comments. My name is Leon and I use the initials LLH. I understand Wikipedia invites edits from everyone for more comprehensive articles and has a group consensus that is used to screen edits. This is my first article on Wikipedia and certainly I do have some things to learn. I didn't find the things you mentioned at your links. I did notice that "duplicates" should be removed and have not been. I noticed that "nonsense" was to be removed and has not been. I am a Professional Engineer and train engineers. I invite them to learn about business and engineering and think for themselves. I also substitute teach and I invite students to participate, apply and come up ways they can use the information they are learning, to learn skills and apply what they know. I wrote up some standards from industry for school boards to consider implementing in schools and I asked them to have the students apply things, learn skills and how to be more engaged in what they are learning. It seems to me this adds more of an "active" voice to encyclopedia writing, rather than a passive voice and I guess that is different, but I didn't see that as a problem. Could you point out more specifically where asking Wiki readers things like, "to think for themselves" is actually forbidden somewhere? LLH--207.69.136.203 01:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello Leon, great that you have the courage to just start and write! Don't mind, if it is not yet perfect - all of us have been corrected here dozens of times :-) Writing in encyclopedia style is not something you are born with, it's something you have to learn (mainly by doing).

Now one of the most important words of Wikipedia is NPOV - Neutral Point of View. This is different from the view of a teacher, who usually is convinced of or even enthustiastic about what he is teaching. NPOV means, you do not describe your own view - you only describe in a neutral voice facts and relevant opinions about these facts which are attributed to a source and referenced (especially when controversial). So it's not "I'm telling you about the great relativity theory" or "Study the fascinating relativity theory" but "Einstein described the relativity theory first in his 1905 essay On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (in this case no reference is necessary, this fact is pretty undisputed).

Some examples from your text:

"L. Ron Hubbard released the book "Dianetics, the Modern Science of Mental Health" to the broad public in 1950." is perfectly ok, neutrally formulated hard cold fact.
"Estimates of 150,000 to 500,000 copies were sold in that first year, and 20 to 30 million have been sold as of this writing." - Such a statement needs at least the source, and an approximate date is much preferable to "as of this writing". "According to a statement of Scientology's publication company New Era in late 2004, estimates of ...."
"The American Medical Association (AMA) was shaken to its very core by this book." is not ok - this information is not verifiable. To write it in Wikipedia style, it should be something like "Dr. XX, president of the AMA, wrote in journal YY of December 1950 'This discovery is going to ruin the medical profession', a statement which has been agreed with by several other leading AMA members in 1951."

Not neutral from the Wikipedia point of view is everything which points to your attitude on the subject: Rhetorical questions to the reader are not neutral - you wouldn't ask them, if you didn't want something specific. Asking the reader to do or try out something is not neutral - its a way to take a position you want to prove. I know, it's tempting to preach the things you believe in, and while there is nothing inherently wrong with that, countless Christians, New Age adherents and fans of special theories (me too) have already had to learn, that an encyclopedia like Wikipedia is not the place for preaching - it just describes neutrally and based on facts and references.

Please don't take this amiss - I just want to give on what I have learned here (well, you do not have to repeat all my mistakes ;-) ) --Irmgard 15:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Irmgard, thank you for your comments. I trust your sincerity and judgement. I see from other comments on this page that the severest dcrutiny may be paid to some entries and not to others. Would you please comment on these excerpts from the article just prior to my edit, and still not reverted?

"All published scientific studies of specific assertions of Dianetics have shown them not to hold." This statement occures twice in the article. As you know I referenced the major scientific study using the severest of psychological protocols, from 1950 issued with the book Science of Survival in 1951. It shows substantial IQ gains, personality profile improvements and psychosomatic illness improvements. To me this statement is without basis. An earlier edit of the page referenced one scientific article (1953 New York University PhD thesis) that represented itself as the only scientific article available on Dianetics.

My assessment of the statement is that it is a blatent generality with no references, intended to disperse the attention of readers and editors, and lead readers in a direction far from NPOV. In fact Dianetics asserts the nature of mental image pictures. Anyone scientific or not can recall a cat, or anything, and verify this assertion of Dianetics. This statement and this mechanism fail to meet your NPOV standards and are being used to subvert that intention on this other articles on Wikipedia.

I had a closer look at the article, my fingers started to itch - and now my answer to you will be rather short because I've been busy (its already midnight my time). You are very right - blatant generality with no references. I hunted every para down to where it might possibly come from, replaced the vagueness (and some incorrectnesses) with what the authors really said and listed the references. --Irmgard 22:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

"a science cannot depend on axioms, only on hypotheses based on experimental evidence." As you must know Mechanics is based on Newtons Laws and his Universal Law of Gravitation, which are statements of natural law. These "axioms" are the actual basis of classical physics, the first of the modern sciences and the role model for all others. Francis Bacon is known by some at the father of modern science. His description of seeking out natural laws and statements of natural law are found in "The New Atlantis", 1620. This is the actual basis of the scientific method. Geometry is definitely based on axioms and similar statements.

"Definitely a misquote of Carroll - I read it in the original and there it makes sense, but not in this abbreviated form. Also it pecks around on a detail - I took instead Carrolls conclusion, less nitpicking. --Irmgard 22:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

My assessment is that the editor of that statement is confused about the scientific method and its role relative to natural law and modern science. But in the context of this article it is non-factual and disputive not only of Dianetics, but modern science itself.

I agree :-) --Irmgard 22:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

On your AMA comment. My statement is from the minutes of the AMA in 1950 or 1951 summarizing discussions that Dianetics has cost their membership billions already and that it must be suppressed. I will try to find the reference for you.

That would be a valuable contribution. --Irmgard 22:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I think these examples are examples of skew in the NPOV value you discuss for this topic. On a scale of 0 to 100 NPOV on this topic is probably about 20 to 30, in my opinion, instead of 50. Readers attention is dispursed by overly general false statements, so I say "read what it actually says" and then compare. My intent is not to skew the scale above 50 but to point out that such general and false statements can go right under even your radar. Asking the reader to and expecting the reader to, read the actual material he came to this article to find is neutral. My statement is neutral. The actual material is neutral. Our views about it may be pro or con. When someone says, it does fantastic things or it does horrible things, those are pro or con.

The claims of Dianetics should sure be listed - as claims of Hubbard, best with referencing to DMSMH by page or chapter. Also the later developments - Book1 auditing Dianetics Rundowns and NED auditing - that's factual information. Regarding fantastic success stories it might be better to just state that they exist and link to the page - else it might get a touch of "advertising". Also comparisons between pro and contra should not be given - that would be a personal evaluation (and I cannot stretch my imagination to the point that Wikipedia editors could agree on one regarding this subject) --Irmgard 22:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

When someone says you shouldn't recommend someone read or think or test or decide about something isn't that a skew in a negative direction to learning? I guess we are talking about encyclopedic articles all together now, and not this article specifically. I stopped by the London Museum of Natural History about 20 years ago and they were just implementing a novel new idea. Instead of static displays that encouraged viewers to be passive, they were redesigning exhibts so people could interact. They could start the action with the push of button or lever or do some part of it. I thought that was a good idea then, and I think it is a good idea here. Readers should read the materials of the subject. LLH--207.69.138.200 17:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

There are many ways and methods trying to get people of any age to learn. Wikipedia assumes people who read an article are in a certain degree interested in the subject - why else should they read it? And every article should (ideally) offer references, so the facts mentioned can be verified, links to other articles with related subjects, and further reading or weblinks for those who want to dig deeper. But all of this is voluntary - no telling them to do it or not to do it, no sales tactics. You anyway cannot predict on which track they do hit on Dianetics - maybe they got here by accident and want to find out more about science fiction. Of course, the further reading/weblinks should as well represent the main views mentioned in the article (not just one of them and not completely unbalanced). --Irmgard 22:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I have talked with DRINI and he has withdrawn his concerns in his discussion area and OKed me to undo his changes, "...feel free to undo my changes if you like. <drini ☎> 15:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)" LLH--207.69.138.10 22:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Jason, you'd better believe that any detailed article, particularly from an avowed practitioner, is going to be subjected to the harshest critical scrutiny as regards how fairly it presents facts. It should not be a presentation of Dianetics from the point of view of a practitioner, so you're going to have step out of your own skin for bit, or suffer people beating your work into proper submission. A good article would include facts about the history of Dianetics and its public reception, competing views as to whether it is just a sham, details about how professional psychologists view it, and so forth. --LMS

Jason, you'd better believe that any detailed article, particularly from an avowed practitioner, is going to be subjected to the harshest critical scrutiny as regards how fairly it presents facts.

I understand and expect that. I also expect a similar treatment of Psychology, which currently (except for one weasel-worded paragraph) only presents their side. The Psychiatry and Psychoanalysis articles, as I write this, are trivial.

It should not be a presentation of Dianetics from the point of view of a practitioner, so you're going to have step out of your own skin for bit, or suffer people beating your work into proper submission.

That Dianetics teaches certain things are facts that I intend to present (though not in fine detail). Whether or not those facts are true or that the practice is effective are presently matters of controversy which I will bring up.

A good article would include facts about the history of Dianetics and its public reception, competing views as to whether it is just a sham, details about how professional psychologists view it, and so forth.

The professional psychs detest Dianetics and have been fighting it from its first announcement. I can present details about how they have been fighting it (this will require some research); the Psychs have never presented any evidence that refutes it (of which I am aware). All they have ever said is that it doesn't fit their theories, which is true. IMHO, it just so happens that their theories are wrong or incomplete; just as the Alchemists theories of phlogiston causing combustion were wrong and eventually disproved by Priestly.

Public reception has been very good from the start, which is one reason the Psychs fear and detest it. What I intend to present in the article are the facts behind these assertions, not the opinions I stated above. It's quite fine by me to have readers present counterclaims, or add them directly to the article, of course. But then we get, eventually, into the problem of counter-counter...counter-claims. :)

BTW, it seems to be a matter of fact that Dianetics is more verifiable and better validated than any other field of mental health. The WikiPedia article on Psychology even states (if briefly) that their theories have not and cannot be rigorously proven. --Jason

That is a bald faced lie. Seriously. RK 20:51 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I don't think the psychology article says precisely that, or if it does, it should be properly qualified.

Public reaction to Dianetics has largely been scorn and ridicule, as far as I was aware. I've never met a person whom I knew took it seriously. --LMS

LMS, here are my two cents worth on "the public reception of Dianetics" issue. My wife and I got excited about Dianetics in 1970, during the Viet Nam War. I was suddenly called to active duty, but my friend next door in Florida, asked me about Dianetics. I told him I had mistakenly bought the book in the Science Fiction section of a local department store, but half way through reading it, realized, "This could actually work!" I put my copy of the book in his hands and told him I had no time, I had to go on active duty. Four years later when I talked with him again, he was Clear and was interested in starting a Dianetics group. We found that 27 of the local people that attended to start the group had all gotten excited by reading one book, MY BOOK. That's right, my friend had read it and left it in a bottom drawer at work when he left a company. Another guy picked it out of the drawer and got excited, and his girlfriend got excited...on and on. There were honestly 27 people that got interested enough in Dianetics from my ONE book to; read it, do it, want to start a group to help others with what they had learned, show up at his meeting and want to train others in Dianetics.

I think your experience may be rather darker than most. LLH--207.69.138.6 19:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I see that this coverage of Dianetics is completely biased and not "neutral point of view" at all. There is no way that someone who has ever actually applied the techniques of Diantics could have participated in this depiction.

For example, the fame of Dianetics is said to be short lived and currently unpopular at best. However, this could not be further from the truth as Dianetics continues to spread like wildfire planet wide. Currently translated into more that 50 languages, there are literally thousands of people discovering Dainetics for the first time everyday. Just this year there have been over 100 new official groups formed. In only four months. That's almost one a day. This does not seem to be unpopular. Dianetics: The modern Science of Mental Health sales are consistantly in the millions annually. Again, this doesn't seem unpopular. Dianetics is consistalty raved about by those who actually read about it and apply it. Consistantly.

None of these facts (yes they are factual) are mentioned and the DIanetics movement is being described as having "spawned a series of short-lived "Dianetics clubs" and Dianetics organizations," and that "The phenomenon did not last long...." Completely untrue. Get you facts straight. When I attempted to present a factual account based on my personal observation, it was promptly removed. Not very "neutral point of view".

My statments can be confirmed at the official Dianetics site www.Dianetics.org. Or just talk to someone who has at least some first hand familiarity with the subject.

-Karl

The official site is unlikely to be the best source of NPOV info. However, I agree that the article arguably has a slight anti- slant. I shall try to fix that shortly. Your solution, however, appears to be to move it to a pro- position.

In any event, I won't take lectures on NPOV from someone who blanked half the Scientology article. Evercat 19:06 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I removed blatant and flagrant lies. There is a LOT of false informaiton there. A NPOV should also be the TRUTH and not malicious lies and false information. Look at the true source of the false inforamtion and you'll find a handful of bad intentioned liars.

I could make up all kinds of stories about all sorts of thing and add them in to various articles throughout Wikipedia. If I did so, the lies should be removed. Even if someone else were to believe that my lies, though unfounded and unprovable, were truth, it doesn't make them so. Let's get honest not just about Dianetics or Scientology, but about everything that we communicate.

This site exists to educate. How can you educate with lies?? Get real. People come here looking for true data about something and they do so because they don't know about whatever they are looking up. In this state of not knowing, one will assume whatever they read to be truth even when it is not so.

In the case of Dianetics and Scientolgoy, the numbers should speak for themselves. Where there are literally millions of people sharing successes with Dianetics and Scientology, some telling their personal story of how Scientology saved their lives, families or marriage, how it has improved their lives in every way -- Very creditable people --, you find only a handful ( I would guess less than ten) who have every read a book and actually applied that technology of Dianetics or Sceintology and were displeased in any way.

All of this is just simply lies. -Karl (200306171300)

Moved here from the article:

Dianetics is the only the first level in a series of secret Scientology teachings; its higher level of teachings are kept secret from members who have not reached these levels. In the Church of Scientology vs. Fishman and Geertz case, former scientologist Steven Fishman introduced as evidence what appeared to be Hubbard's OT I through OT VIII documents, of which a small portion known as the Xenu story has received much media attention. The Fishman affidavit became public domain as a court document, and contains confidential course materials sold at a high cost. The church subsequently dropped the case against Fishman and petitioned the court to seal the documents, without formally acknowledging their authenticity.

The original Dianetics techniques are not part of the Church of Scientology's official bridge; there is something called New Era Dianetics (NED), of which I don't know what it is, but I doubt it has much to do with DTMSOMH. The rest of the paragraph is basically correct, if somewhat POV, but a discussion of OT levels simply doesn't belong in an article on dianetics. Last I checked, a very similar paragraph was located at Scientology, where it belongs. Mkweise 20:58 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Mkweise, why did you remove the section which explains the foundations of Dianetics? We can't have an article on Dianetics that removes the basis of Hubbard's teachings. Hubbard wasn't shy about these (lucrative!) teachings about alien conquest, interstellar war, dianetics and engrams. Wikipedia should describe these claims accurately. Let the reader make up their own mind. This is no different than describing the claims of Jewish, Christian or Muslims readers in regards to their own religions. If someone is embarrased by these claims, that only means that they find Hubbard's religion to be silly science-fiction. The same is true of the way that many atheists see all of our religion entries! But describe them accurately we must, even if some of us think that these beliefs are silly. RK 20:51 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Dianetics teachings make no mention whatsoever of space aliens and such. (If you were to actually pick up a copy of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, you'd probably wish it did as it's mostly too bone-dry to be any fun to read.)

Dianetics teachings are contained in 3 of Hubbard's books, the last of which was published in 1955. The Scientology OT levels (aka the space alien stories) didn't appear in Scientology until some time around 1970. Perhaps we should have a Timeline of Dianetics and Scientology to clarify how it all interrelates? Mkweise 21:38 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree. A clarification of this false information (aka LIES) is most certainly needed. -Karl

I changed "Dianetics is often regarded as" to "Dianetics is by some regarded as" to state that not all people regard it as that sometimes, or something og the like. I think this makes it more 'un-non-sense-ial" :) ilyanep 23:57 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've read a bunch of this stuff and it's pretty strange. All you guys bending over to be "impartial", trying to warn people against Dn & Scn without appearing to be obvious about it. But you need to understand your subject a little better if you want people to take you seriously.

For a pertinent example, one thing Dianetics does is to address stressful events in a person's life which are continuing to affect him. The techniques of that address and results of those techniques are part of Dianetics - not the events. If someone is all screwed up because his bicycle fell on him when he was three years old, Dianetics can take the stress out of the thing so he can put his attention on what he's doing in his own life. But Dianetics has nothing to do with bicycles falling on people's heads. Nor has it anything to do with space opera or other stuff that people sometimes talk about in session.

If you read a bit of Scientology you would come across discussion about some incredible things because they do come up and it's interesting. But as Ron Hubbard points out, it all belongs in the bin of Para-Scientology - stuff that is subjective, non-proven and variables (not everyone has a bicycle fall on their head).

Maybe you dispute that people continue to be affected by past stressful incidents. That's your opinion. Maybe you disagree that Dn can do anything about them, but you omit any reasonable discussion of Dn techniques. How impartial is that?

This could be simply distortion of information, but I'll be charitable and assign it to lack of comprehension.

steve spargo

Instead of complaining about the article, why don't you just fix it? Mkweise 18:07, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

P.S. Consider registering a user name with Wikipedia (it's free) and logging in to do your edits; anonymous edits generally tend to be taken less seriously around here. Mkweise 18:11, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

One of the problems with taking advice on dianetics and scientology from a practioner is that adherents have in the past harassed and intimidated and sued into bankruptcy any critics of their POV, while simultaneously spamming their POV in public forums as the Gospel. I am unaware of any psychologists hiring, for example, private investigators to track their critics from airport to airport, or postering critics' neighborhoods with claims that the critics are child molesters. So if scientologists and dianetics adherents encounter some resistance to claims that the article is not neutral, please be aware of why the greater community may take such claims with a large grain of salt. (posting anon for this one)

To be or not to be science

"Critics would argue that a 'definite axiom' is an oxymoron, and regardless, a science cannot be based on axioms, only on hypotheses based on experimental evidence."

Isn't mathematics based on axioms? E.g. afaik it's not possible to prove the "intuitive" or "real-world" validity of modus ponens without circular reasoning, and the completeness of the real numbers is also an axiomatical convention.

I'm aware of the Wikipedia definition of science, which would exclude mathematics, I'm just curious whether this distinction is commonly accepted (english is not my mother tongue). Ironically, this definition of science also excludes computer science, except for the rare physical aspects.

Finally, an axiom can be a "self-evident truth", or a convention, a "definite self-evident truth" would more sound like a tautology.

Aragorn2 00:10, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I find that whole discussion rather silly, but judge for yourself. Here, taken from a posting to a.r.s., is the source LRH was referring to in that quote:

Dianetics: The Original Thesis 1948THE FUNDAMENTAL AXIOMS OF DIANETICS

The dynamic principle of existence -- SURVIVE!

Survival, considered as the single and sole Purpose, subdivides into four dynamics.

DYNAMIC ONE is the urge of the individual toward survival for the individual and his symbiotes. By symbiote is meant all entities and energies which aid survival.

DYNAMIC TWO is the urge of the individual toward survival through procreation; it includes both the sex act and the raising of progeny, the care of children and their symbiotes.

DYNAMIC THREE is the urge of the individual toward survival for the group or the group for the group and includes the symbiotes of that group.

DYNAMIC FOUR is the urge of the individual toward survival for Mankind or the urge toward survival of Mankind for Mankind as well as the group for Mankind, etc., and includes the symbiotes of Mankind.

The absolute goal of survival is immortality or infinite survival. This is sought by the individual in terms of himself as an organism, as a spirit or as a name or as his children, as a group of which he is a member or as

63

Mankind and the progeny and symbiotes of others as well as his own.

The reward of survival activity is pleasure.

The ultimate penalty of destructive activity is death or complete non-survival, and is pain.

Successes raise the survival potential toward infinite survival. Failures lower the survival potential toward death.

The human mind is engaged upon perceiving and retaining data, composing or computing conclusions and posing and resolving problems related to organisms along all four dynamics; and the purpose of perception, retention, concluding and resolving problems is to direct its own organism and symbiotes and other organisms and symbiotes along the four dynamics toward survival.

Intelligence is the ability to perceive, pose and resolve problems.

The dynamic is the tenacity to life and vigor and persistence in survival.

Both the dynamic and intelligence are necessary to persist and accomplish and neither is a constant quantity from individual to individual, group to group.

The dynamics are inhibited by engrams, which lie across them and disperse life force.

Intelligence is inhibited by engrams which feed false or

64

improperly graded data into the analyzer.

Happiness is the overcoming of not unknown obstacles toward a known goal and, transiently, the contemplation of or indulgence in pleasure.

The analytical mind is that portion of the mind which perceives and retains experience data to compose and resolve problems and direct the organism along the four dynamics. It thinks in differences and similarities.

The reactive mind is that portion of the mind which files and retains physical pain and painful emotion and seeks to direct the organism solely on a stimulus-response basis. It thinks only in identities.

The somatic mind is that mind which, directed by the analytical or reactive mind, places solutions into effect on the physical level.

A training pattern is that stimulus-response mechanism resolved by the analytical mind to care for routine activity or emergency activity. It is held in the somatic mind and can be changed at will by the analytical mind.

Habit is that stimulus-response reaction dictated by the reactive mind from the content of engrams and put into effect by the somatic mind. It can be changed only by those things which change engrams.

Aberrations, under which is included all deranged or irrational behavior, are caused by engrams. They are stimulus-response pro- and contra-survival.

Psycho-somatic ills are caused by engrams.

65

The engram is the single source of aberrations and psycho-somatic ills.

Moments of "unconsciousness" when the analytical mind is attenuated in greater or lesser degree are the only moments when engrams can be received.

The engram is a moment of "unconsciousness" containing physical pain or painful emotion and all perceptions and is not available to the analytical mind as experience.

Emotion is three things: engramic response to situations, endocrine metering of the body to meet situations on an analytical level and the inhibition or the furtherance of life force.

The potential value of an individual or a group may be expressed by the equation

x PV = ID

where I is Intelligence and D is Dynamic.

The worth of an individual is computed in terms of the alignment, on any dynamic, of his potential value with optimum survival along that dynamic. A high PV may, by reversed vector, result in a negative worth as in some severely aberrated persons. A high PV on any dynamic assures a high worth only in the unaberrated person.

I'm removing the trademark notice from the first sentence ("L. Ron Hubbard developed Dianetics™..."). IANAL, but I don't believe that it is required in a noncommercial article about Dianetics; also, very few of the other trademarks used in Wikipedia have any kind of trademark symbol by them.

(Though, personally, I'd be happy to see ™s by Scientology, Dianetics, and their hundreds of trademarks, except that then every other trademark mentioned in Wikipedia would have to get one too.) Tregoweth 21:12, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Okay so taking a long look at this page, it has become a hodge-podge of information, mis-information and opinions. Someone suggested earlier that a time-line be done showing the formation of the subject, this can also be used to show the relationship and development between Dianetics and Scientology. I think this is a great idea and would make this page much more professional and informative. It can be done with no slant, merely facts related to time. I am willing to do this, however, before I put the time in I would like to have some agreement. I realize of course it can be written on once done (the basis of Wiki) however, as this would be a radical change to the page I want to make sure that no one has a problem with this before I do the work. Nuview 14:50, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a fine idea here. As you noted, your edits will of course be open to further edits by Wikipedia users -- and many of Wikipedia's users do not unquestionably accept the Church of Scientology's version of the history of Dianetics as the absolute, inarguable truth. So I hope we can keep rhetoric and (especially) accusations of bias out of this and other articles. --Modemac 09:41, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Modemac - Okay, here goes. I have attempted to keep this very dry and factual (though I realize people may have other ideas - rightly or wrongly), but before I post it, would you take a look at the text of it and let me know if you have any suggestions. Thanks -- Nuview 16:30, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Please don't ask for my approval on this or any other article -- I'm not in charge here, any more than you are. The Wikipedia motto is: be bold when editing articles, and go ahead and make your changes. Further edits to the article by all other contributors will settle it down into something we can all agree upon. --Modemac 22:45, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good job, Nuview. May I comment even though you have posted already? LLH

Dianetics:

The word Dianetics comes from the Greek dia, meaning “through” and nous, meaning “soul”, and is defined as “what the soul is doing to the body.” Dianetics presents itself as a methodology, which can help alleviate unwanted sensations and emotions, irrational fears and psychosomatic illnesses (illnesses caused or aggravated by mental stress).

History:

Dianetics technology was developed by American author and philosopher L. Ron Hubbard Born 1911, Died 1986. Hubbard’s first manuscript on his study of the mind, “Excalibur” was written in 1938, this was never published. Hubbard looked for the most basic principle of Life or knowledge. In philosophy this is called, "The Dynamic Principle of Existence." The reason Excalibur was written was to describe his discovery of this most basic principle and what it could mean for mankind. His statement of this principle is "Survive". This is the first principle of Dianetics stated as a natural law, and is the first axiom of Dianetics. It is described more fully in all the basic books and lectures of Dianetics. All of the technical material in Excalibur have been documented in his written works, publically released and is not lost. Only portions of the original hand typed manuscript are lost.

Through his travels, the study of many cultures around the world and scientific research, he discovered no one really knew how or why people behave as they do.

He first mentioned the subject of of the mind, referred to as “Terra Incognita” in a series of articles in Astounding Science Fiction magazine during the 1940s. In the May issue of 1950 a full book length feature was published and later re-published as the book, "The Evolution of a Science.

In 1947 the first clears were produced with a simple technique. People were asked to look at the mind. They were asked to familiarize themselves with it, improve their ability to use it and confront any pain, unconsciousness or threat to survival they encountered in a gradually increasing way. The natural abilities demonstrated by these clears were then taken as the ideal of Dianetics. Research was directed to better ways for others to accomplish the state of clear. The idea of "normal" as used in other subjects was not used.

In 1948 L. Ron Hubbard wrote a thesis (See the book, "The Original Thesis", later published as The Dynamics of Life) that summarized his research and delineated the principles he discovered. This was the 1948 release of Dianetics to the medical and scientific communities. He continued to further develop and test a new technology of the mind, which he called “Dianetics.”

Dianetics was released broadly to the general public and appeared as a complete system of published self-improvement techniques in the book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (DMSMH), a comprehensive work detailing his discoveries and techniques. The book was officially published May 9, 1950 and became a nationwide best-seller. Due to the interest generated, many groups were formed for the purpose of applying Dianetics techniques to one another.

In 1951 other books by Hubbard followed, addressing the subject of Dianetics:Self Analysis, Science of Survival, Notes on the Lectures of L. Ron Hubbard, Advanced Procedure and Axioms and Child Dianetics, then in 1954, Dianetics 55! and in 1955 Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science.

In 1952 Dianetics research led Hubbard into a spiritual realm, therefore he presented Scientology, a religious philosophy. The stated goal of Scientology is to fully rehabilitate the spiritual nature of an individual, including rehabilitating all abilities and realizing one's full potential,whereas, the goal of Dianetics is to rid the individual of his reactive mind and become “Clear.”

(“Clear” is defined by L. Ron Hubbard as a state wherein a person no longer has his own reactive mind and therefore suffers none of the ill effects the reactive mind can cause. It is also maintained that becoming Clear strengthens a person’s native individuality and creativity and that a Clear is free with his emotions.)

Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health:

The book describes mental techniques designed to clear the mind of unwanted sensations, irrational fears, and psychosomatic illnesses. In Dianetics, Hubbard covers his isolation of the dynamic principle of existence and provides his description of the human mind. He states the source of all human aberration is the reactive mind and its engrams. He then developed counseling (auditing) techniques for getting rid of engrams. This is the technique used by Dianetics counselors today.

L.Ron Hubbard stated:

“Acknowledgment is made to fifty thousand years of thinking men without whose speculations and observations the creation and construction of Dianetics would not have been possible. Credit in particular is due to:

“Anaxagoras, Thomas Paine, Aristotle, Thomas Jefferson, Socrates, René Descartes, Plato, James Clerk Maxwell, Euclid, Charcot, Lucretius, Herbert Spencer, Roger Bacon, William James, Francis Bacon, Sigmund Freud, Isaac Newton, van Leeuwenhoek, Cmdr. Joseph Thompson (MC) USN, William A. White, Voltaire, Will Durant, Count Alfred Korzybski, and my instructors in atomic and molecular phenomena, mathematics and the humanities at George Washington University and at Princeton.”

What happened to the "The Wikipedia motto is: be bold when editing articles, and go ahead and make your changes. Further edits to the article by all other contributors will settle it down into something we can all agree upon." ? This just got reverted out of hand. As I have said earlier, I am very willing to be corrected editorial, to get consensus and would hope someone would help direct me. I am open to dialog on this. --[User:Nuview|Nuview]] 13:00, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

It wasn't reverted; I took your additions and added previous material to it -- material that is factual and appropriate for an article on Dianetics. Your stuff is still there. And anyone can further edit my edits, including you. The point here is not to replace an existing article (one that has been worked on extensively by many different contributors), but rather to add, modify, and expand upon the existing work to produce something better. --Modemac 20:23, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. My mistake. Question - How do we handle it when it is one person's word against anothers? For instance, I am a veteran Scientologist and I have never heard anyone "jokingly refer to Dianetics as the Old Testament." Perhaps ex-Scientologists do, I don't know, but to state it as it is seems to be one person's idea. My inclination is to just change something like this but I know people get upset. Any advice? --[User:Nuview|Nuview]] 14:35, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Modemac, about your comment "Reverted falsehoods: there has never been any scientific proof of Dianetics (which is one reason why it's so controversial)".

I think you hung up on the word "documented". That might be the wrong term as it implies wide acceptance and I see why you object to that but that is not what I was trying to convey.

I tried to refer to the following. There is a reference in the text to the wide application of Dianetic techniques that followed the publication of DMSMH. Short-lived or not, immaterial. Before that, Dianetics had been applied to some hundred people. After the book's publication, tens of thousands of people started to apply the techniques and document, as part of the auditor's routine, the phenomena experienced. These auditors kept sending their findings to Mr. Hubbard asking how to handle the phenomena the original DMSMH did not account for. This resulted in an influx of phenomena not recognised before on the two hundred or so patients and so allowed the research into the phenomena of the mind to widen beyond anything imaginable in Dianetics before.

There has been extensive research, I am sure you are not denying that, and it has been documented within the organisational structure of Dianetics at that time.

The original text claiming that Scientology was a result of financial problems is biased: a certain way of interpreting the events, rather than stating the events themselves. And the events undeniably related to the improvements of Dianetics were years of further research. It is not biased to describe the events but it is biased to connect only certain events and explain one with the other. It does not matter very much whether there is a reference to wider research or not but it does matter whether the page shows Scientology as a result of financial and legal problems or not. This latter does not seem to be in keeping with the NPOV principle.

Regarding the "sole purpose" of purchasing books. This is a practice excercised widely even today. I am very often invited to purchase books and donate them to the library in my town, or to the local police station or fire department. I am in no way obliged to comply, I have said no more often than not. Donating books is a routine game in Scientology. I myself ran into Scientology and Dianetics books in the science faculty of the university back in my study years and those books were one of the reasons I learned English. Anyway, the purpose of these book purchases is never is to bump scores on a bestseller list but to allow people that still search for answers to find some. I know it is a matter of viewpoint whether this is good or bad but it is not a matter of viewpoint whether this is true or not. What I just described is what is actually happening. I can send you emails I receive from representatives of such campaigns but you wouldn't understand them because they are not in English =)

Undercutting this selfless act to appear as a self-serving mass manipulation is again not in keeping with the NPOV principle.

Please reconsider your changes to the page!

-- Xernon 06.12.2004

It is a fact that Hubbard was facing legal and financial problems when he began Scientology. The Church of Scientology does not like to admit this, and there have been previous attempts to wipe out references to this fact of his life. But it is a fact that Hubbard faced criticism and legal actions as the Dianetics movement began to falter. He responded by inventing Scientology and incorporating it as a church. It happened, and that's why the reference to it is here.

Also, people have been looking for documentation of this "extensive research" that took place regarding Dianetics. They have been looking for documents relating to this for over fifty years. If Hubbard did all this research, then where are his published research notes? His unpublished notes? The times, places, and people who took part in this research? I myself went to the Church of Scientology in Boston and asked the folks there these questions. The only answer they gave me was to take the Key to Life course and "see for myself." If all of this research took place, then I for one would want to see some documented evidence of it before I open my wallet and shell out money to pay for any courses.

So if you know where this research is and you can provide links to it, then please do so. --Modemac 12:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

on one hand you will never see the raw data, word for word, of the informations Mr. Hubbard used in his research because those are kept confidential in the same manner, legally and morally, as a Priest's ears might hear. On the other hand, Mr. Hubbard published the results of his reasearch. I have included in the Dianetics article a historical sequence of his Dianetics publications (excluding lectures). Many of the original books can still be viewed at the Library of Congress. He published his conclusions while maintaining the sanctity of the confessional. It might be worth noting, Mr. Hubbard had a style which could take something as ethereal as a thought and present it to you in ways so you could twist it this way and that and examine it. The subject matter is thought and it is not an area easily examined or communicated. Anyone can drop a ball and measure how fast it falls but can anyone examine a thought and compare it to someone else's examination of their thought? Terryeo 19:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Modemac, thanks for your response.

I am sorry to hear your experience with the people who directed you to the Key to Life course. You see, my take is that they operate on the principle that if one is interested in Scientology only to validate it against some other practices then one's intentions are misguided and until one sees for oneself how one can benefit from studying Scientology they will choose to spend their efforts on others who would actually banefit from their interest. I reckon this is what you were subjected to. Again, this is my personal view of the events, not reflective of any official view.

About the matter at hand. I think it is not a question whether there were financial and/or legal problems or whether these were connected to the incorporation of Scientology as a church or not, therefore it is probably OK to keep these claims on the page if you insist that they are important to the description of Dianetics. They should be duly qualified with a clear identification of who makes the claim, though. As it stands now, this explanation is the only one represented on the page, which fact violates the NPOV principle.

One thing that comes to mind about legal actions has to do with the failure to protect Dianetics with a trademark. I don't know full details but Mr. Hubbard almost lost ownership of his work because of this oversight. After that he and the church took extreme care to protect his work from further attempts of alienation. Not sure how relevant this is, just thought I mention in passing.

This might strike as new but according to the church, Scientology was not looked upon as religious until 1954, when it was "found to fill the need for a religion" and parishioners, not Mr. Hubbard, founded the first Church of Scientology in Los Angeles. Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, I think the statements on the page need correction in this regard, too.

About the research I mentioned. I think we have a slight disconnect here. When I say "research" you probably imply a publicly conducted, open research with publicly announced details and, well, notes. Well, it wasn't like that. No external entity has funded or sponsored Dianetic research as no one actually cared, obviously, save those enthusiastic about the results Dianetics produced.

The research I'm referring to was conducted within the realm of Dianetics and so I do not think it is appropriate to expect me to provide links to independent accounts of the events - if that is what you were referring to. Considering that this page is supposed to be about Dianetics, I think if Dianetics claims there was research then it is only appropriate to mention that claim, irrespective of whether there is proof or not. Don't you think?

Now about the missing research notes, I have to explain something that should not be difficult to understand when put in perspective. Again, this is my take of the issue but it might shed light to some details.

I am sure you are familiar with the concept of confession in some Christian faiths. You must also be familiar with the sanctity of any personal detail disclosed during confession. See where I'm going with this?

Dianetics auditing is comparable in its form to a confession, but I would like to emphasise that the comparison ends with the form. The auditor and the pre-clear work together to address personal distress in the pre-clear's life. Any detail recorded during auditing sessions is sacred and not subject to publication in any way. Scientology is meticulous about conformance to the highest standards of ethics and so even though you could argue that those personal details from some fifty years ago are irrelevant and their publication would not hurt anyone, they will not be published, period. Catch-22, I guess. This should also explain why those people rejecting your request for research notes asked you to "see it for yourself": the only "hard evidence" you will ever see is in your own head, waiting to startle you when you suddenly find one during an auditing session. I know because I got my share of surprises =)

Having said that, the published results of that research are all over the place. Go to any Scientology bookstore and you will find books like Scientology 8-8008 and many others written, and lectures delivered, by Mr. Hubbard on the subject of the human spirit and its phenomena during the period in question. One prominent example is the Philadelphia Doctorate Course (PDC) encompassing a whopping 76 individual lectures that summarise the research Mr. Hubbard had conducted between 1950, the publication of DMSMH, and 1952, the delivery of those lectures. Please consider this for a moment: 76 lectures summarising two years of research.

I have the lectures myself and their content is definitely far from being a re-iteration of Dianetics principles. Again, it is immaterial whether anything is true in those lectures or not. What is important is that something has taken place that resulted in the 76-lecture summary of that something. Dianetics claims it was research. On a page about Dianetics, it is only appropriate to mention this claim.

Among other things, the PDC discusses at length for several lectures issue 5 of what we call Standard Operating Procedure, or SOP. SOP is the successive steps the auditor follows with a preclear, each step having its exact processes and end phenomena (results). PDC also addresses SOP issue 3, briefly, with some details of its evolution.

In another lecture series held in London before the PDC, SOP issue 2 was presented. In Scientology 8-8008, after the PDC, SOP issue 8 was described, if I remember correctly. This gives clear indication of an evolution of techniques, does it not?

When you consider the data presented in those lectures and look over the description of the SOP, things look consistent; the why, how and what nicely fall into place. Considering the sheer amount of the information, in addition to failing miserably to pass Occam's Razor, attributing all of this wealth of consistent data to Mr. Hubbard's imagination would be very flattering concerning Mr. Hubbard's abilities =)

Regarding my other change where the original text claimed that Scientologists buy books to bump scores on bestseller lists. You had no objection against my correction in your response. Do you think we can change the text in some way so that it does not suggest the act to be some ill-intended manipulation of bestseller lists? That would be fair.

-- Xernon 06.12.2004

To chime in here in response to the question regarding the research of Dianetics. This information is most definitely publicly available. It can be found in a hardback volumes available to all. Here is the description along with the link to obtain them. L. Ron Hubbard's research was not kept secret - he wrote and lectured prolifically -

"Compiled from more than 25 million words contained in almost 3,000 L. Ron Hubbard lectures, the Research and Discovery Series is the consecutive record of Mr. Hubbard's research and discoveries which brought man the freedoms of Dianetics and Scientology.

"When completed, the series will consist of 110 volumes, containing all of Mr. Hubbard's public lectures and demonstrations. His initial research culminated in 1950 with the publication of the book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.

"Responding to the demand for more information on the subject of Dianetics, Mr. Hubbard began personally training the many who sought him out with lectures detailing his continuing discoveries as he made them.

"The Research & Discovery Series is the only complete record of Mr. Hubbard's breakthroughs—containing the transcripts of over 3,000 lectures. Thus far, twelve volumes in the projected 110 volume series have been compiled and released." Available at Research and Discovery Series

Nuview 12:20, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Censorship

A question occured to me recently while visiting a related web site.

If I was an outspoken critic of psychology, or better, an anti-psychology activist, would it be appropriate or even acceptable if I started to get involved in the overall shaping of the psychology page, gradually assumed some sort of moderator role and started censoring changes made by others to that page to better suit my viewpoint?

-- Xernon, 10.12.2004

It would be as acceptable as if you were an outspoken adherant. ~~~~ 01:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Odd sentence

This sentence really jumped out at me and begs for a rewrite from somebody: "Coincident to this controversy followed and the validity of Dianetics was challenged." Turnstep 16:18, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Complete Reorganisation

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I sorted the whole article - first one section on Scientology's view of Dianetics and then one of independent scientific views.

I hunted every para down for possible sources, found them and then had to reformulate it according to what the source actually said - references are added. General critics of Scientology with nothing but personal opinions to offer I left out - no substantial contribution to this article. If someone absolutely thinks this needs to be referenced, a "See also" to Scientology controversy should be enough, no need to repeat everything here. --Irmgard 22:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed apologeticsindex and used instead the detailed references --Irmgard 22:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Studies

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Your first reference study is by Harvey Jay Fisher. I understand Harvey was a student, writing a paper at a teacher's college. Do you have any scientific type credentials for this person?

Title Page of Harvey's Study: Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Education of New York University. So evidently he was a bit more than a student. That's all I know about him, though. One more point in his favor is, that his study is in correct academic format. --Irmgard 22:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The study I refenced in Science of Survival has three eminent psychological people developing a strict protocol with state of the art mensuration. That study seems to have resulted in about 10 IQ points gain for the 88 participants. Harvey seemed to have read it but attempted to reduce the hours to a minimum, the training to zero and spread the hours thinly over as long a time as possible. This is the opposite of Dianetic procedure where intensive auditing means all the auditing a person wants and that results in 15 to 25 hours per week instead of 1 to 2 per week, as Harvey's study shows. It makes me curious as to how he was able to achieve this low rate. The rate is so low that one auditor could easily have done all the auding in the study. Harvey did not use Dianetic intensive procedure and in fact, reversed the intention of it which is to maximize gains. This low delivery rate alerts my attention that this is student auditing delivered on a research basis where the student does three sessions and then graduates. I understand the protocols and methods were not disclosed to the organization until after the fact of the paper. LLH--207.69.138.199 17:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, no problem mentioning this study as well - but to qualify as scientific study it would need at least the names of the three guys, title and approximate date and where it has been published. If it is in Science of Survival and nowhere else documented, then it could be quoted as "Hubbard claims in SOS page xx-yy that a study by etc. etc." Sure, this can also be referenced, but the reference then goes to Hubbard. Regarding the Harvey study - sorry, your opinion here is not asked for (neither is mine) - but such doubts of the study could (and even should) be mentioned, if they were published, e.g. by Scientology, and could be referenced. (verifiable facts resp. statements) --Irmgard 22:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

LLH's point is well taken. Spreading auditing out over a long period of time (an hour or two a week) can not apply to a Dianetics study because it ignores the technology. This is one of the often misunderstood elements, you audit the guy intensively and you get results. There is a whole body of technology about how to keep your communication cycles really really clean, when to audit, that the guy is well rested and fed, that you are not auditing over certain sorts of real time problems the guy might have and a lot more. Without these many elements in place it is not Dianetics. A scientific study might have followed all of these procedures. Terryeo 22:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Assessment comment

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Dianetics/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*44 citations, one image. Smee 09:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Last edited at 09:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)