I personally think that Scientology on the whole is an extreme, and quite kooky, but I think that Dianetics is on to something about the 'reactive mind' and 'engrams'. I tried a youtube course with a self-auditing exercise (which they say is impossible, but hey ho) and felt a little better after I did it.
I think that willpower is the most neglected aspect of psychology and I don't know why more research has been done to improve on it or explore it.
Any thoughts?
Nathaniel Garcia
Dianetics is pseudo science and only exists as a con to recruit more cultists.
Aaron Butler
>is on to something about the 'reactive mind' and 'engrams' >a mind that has perfect recall about your entire life and also all your past lives >on to something there is a slight glimmer of truth in that the talk therapy aspect of auditing can be helpful for some people to work through trauma but everything about the theory is nonsense
Robert Nguyen
Yeah I get that, but then again willpower is an unquantifiable phenomenon, so the scientific method wouldn't really apply to Dianetics... or psychotherapy for that matter.
The whole process of psychosomatic/psychoanalytic process is based on difference and outliers in accumulated data, but when it comes to willpower its all subjective, so how could it be scientifically analysed or peer-reviewed, and who would be qualified to denounce it as pseudoscience?
Questions beget more questions...
Yeah I think the part about the 'past lives' and 'prenatal trauma' was stupid too but the fact that the mind records everything I 100% agree on - our minds just get numbed by sensory info as we get older so we forget it
Xavier Smith
Cults don't work by being complete nonsense, they work by having slivers of truth or vague generalizations that can lead to specific guesses (see astrology and psychics).
Leo White
>Yeah I get that, but then again willpower is an unquantifiable phenomenon, so the scientific method wouldn't really apply to Dianetics... or psychotherapy for that matter. >The whole process of psychosomatic/psychoanalytic process is based on difference and outliers in accumulated data, but when it comes to willpower its all subjective, so how could it be scientifically analysed or peer-reviewed, and who would be qualified to denounce it as pseudoscience? >Questions beget more questions...
You seem inordinately fond of verbiage.
"It's nonsense by a sci-fi author turned scam artist" is sufficient. In a pinch, crop evertythign after the second "e" in "nonsense."
Carter Gray
>but the fact that the mind records everything I 100% agree on - our minds just get numbed by sensory info as we get older so we forget it that's demonstrably false, though
Dominic Rivera
So Hubbard was a paedophile? Haha
Says who.
Adrian Miller
The book was really shitty and didn't sell well so Hubbard decided to form a cult about it so people would buy it and he could turn a profit. That literally is the origin story of Scientology.
Cooper Morgan
Says science. Your visual perception is 90% inferred fiction. Memory is constructed on the fly from inferences and scant facts. Every time you attempt to remember something, you're editing your own memories.
