Ex members who still use pieces of Scientology.

Karakorum

Broke ranks over 10 years ago, never looked back
Willing to work 14 hours a day? That's all I got.
Been there, done that.

I can work 14 hours a day. I just don't want to be sleeping 5hrs a night again.,
 

Karakorum

Broke ranks over 10 years ago, never looked back

Chuck J.

INTJ
I take five minutes every night and make list of things I need to get done tomorrow. I don't dignify it with the title of B.P. or with any title. Is that $cientology ? ;-)


Usually I do not go out with the idea of using any piece of scn. tech but at times certain situations present themselves and I remember to, say, communicate to someone at a level of reality I sense they're at.

I find the idea of CRA useful especially in customer service situations, where I'm the customer, lol. IIRC, it's from the 17th ACC where Hubbard has one of his "Earth Shattering" break-through's he was prone to ;-) that's it's CRA not ARC, etc.

Nothing too crazy. I sense where they're at reality wise: disgruntled customer service rep. at Wall-Wart having a bad day with the people in line in front of me.....I don't wanna get into the shit with them, so, wow, rocket science! lol - give them a communication where they're at or a little above that point. Reality goes in a little, a bit of affinity, rinse, repeat if necessary, and handle my return.

I guess we can call that scn. But also it's just observing people, trying to get along, and sensing how to make my way thru my day with a minimum of hassle.
 

Karakorum

Broke ranks over 10 years ago, never looked back
Ok, I just realized I have one specific piece of scientology which I use almost all the time in the big world. That piece is: "using emotional reactions in a premeditated, deliberate as tools to complete a task."

I didn't mention it in my last post is because I haven't been thinking of it as a "piece of scientology". Because strictly speaking it is not a "piece of the tech", I do not remember Hubbard giving a lecture about it or explicitly . Rather it is a part of the "SO toolbox" - the "inv toolbox" in specific.

I described it in one of my previous posts:
(...) In inv you are never expected to just "get mad" at the suspect. You decide to deliberately get mad and then proceed to act in this manner to elicit the specific response you want to get from him/her. Nothing is done in a spontaneous manner just because you really feel like that. Everything is deliberate and effect-oriented.​
This isn't limited to just faking anger (though that's probably the most common one), same thing is used with fear, sadness, joy, curiosity etc.

Real life example:
I was in a corporate video conference with my superior and several analysts. My boss really lost his patience and started shouting. In my head I then gone through a list of possible reactions. I settled on one, then very deliberately I raised my voice slightly and in a premeditated tone of irritation said: "Stop shouting, all us us can hear you quite well!"

Because that was very different from my usual altitude (I almost never raise my voice in any corporate meetings), my boss immediately snapped back into reality and realized he was going to far and crossed a line. The meeting was very productive from that point and everyone's tempers subsided. After the meeting my boss even apologized for losing his cool.


Thing is: none of that was my "real" reaction. It was just a "design-for-effect" scientology act, exactly the same toolbox-emotion we used during interrogations and confessionals. That's probably my no.1 most used "piece of scientology". It sure is useful, although I am not sure if it is healthy.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation.
Ok, I just realized I have one specific piece of scientology which I use almost all the time in the big world. That piece is: "using emotional reactions in a premeditated, deliberate as tools to complete a task."

I didn't mention it in my last post is because I haven't been thinking of it as a "piece of scientology". Because strictly speaking it is not a "piece of the tech", I do not remember Hubbard giving a lecture about it or explicitly . Rather it is a part of the "SO toolbox" - the "inv toolbox" in specific.

I described it in one of my previous posts:
(...) In inv you are never expected to just "get mad" at the suspect. You decide to deliberately get mad and then proceed to act in this manner to elicit the specific response you want to get from him/her. Nothing is done in a spontaneous manner just because you really feel like that. Everything is deliberate and effect-oriented.​
This isn't limited to just faking anger (though that's probably the most common one), same thing is used with fear, sadness, joy, curiosity etc.

Real life example:
I was in a corporate video conference with my superior and several analysts. My boss really lost his patience and started shouting. In my head I then gone through a list of possible reactions. I settled on one, then very deliberately I raised my voice slightly and in a premeditated tone of irritation said: "Stop shouting, all us us can hear you quite well!"

Because that was very different from my usual altitude (I almost never raise my voice in any corporate meetings), my boss immediately snapped back into reality and realized he was going to far and crossed a line. The meeting was very productive from that point and everyone's tempers subsided. After the meeting my boss even apologized for losing his cool.

Thing is: none of that was my "real" reaction. It was just a "design-for-effect" scientology act, exactly the same toolbox-emotion we used during interrogations and confessionals. That's probably my no.1 most used "piece of scientology". It sure is useful, although I am not sure if it is healthy.

I think it's very healthy if used to calm situations down or for any other positive reason ... but repulsive when used as hubbard wanted it used (to entrap, guilt trip, create fear and basically get more $ out of people for the 'privilege of being corrected'). I view what you've just described as a sales technique or something a therapist could use when dealing with serious mental health cases and perhaps even when parenting in certain situations ... I have no problem at all with it.

I still occasionally use TR's very deliberately ... and as @Chuck J. mentions I write a quick list each night of things I want to get done the next day.

:)
 

Karakorum

Broke ranks over 10 years ago, never looked back
I think it's very healthy if used to calm situations down or for any other positive reason ... but repulsive when used as hubbard wanted it used (to entrap, guilt trip, create fear and basically get more $ out of people for the 'privilege of being corrected'). I view what you've just described as a sales technique or something a therapist could use when dealing with serious mental health cases and perhaps even when parenting in certain situations ... I have no problem at all with it.
My question about the "healthiness" of it is from the point of the user, not the subject. Looking at it in a detached way, I feel it easily ends up much like a facsimile of autistic masking. There are moments where the vast majority of my emotional reactions end up being "toolbox emotions" to the point that I sometimes do not even know what would have been my "genuine" reaction.

This is compounded by the fact that the technique (by its very essence) was always geared to appear different depending on who you interact with. I would use very different "tools" for the public, different for SO peers, different for CMO girls... and even several different ones for "accountable units", depending how high their anxiety was.

So I sometimes find myself adopting different tools for different groups of people in my life and in my company. I often realize this only at a moment where suddenly all these groups appear at the same place at the same time and mix (IE: big company party).
That's where the confusion happens. Talk about a "chameleon on tartan" moment :unsure:

In scientology the various groups are always "neatly" pigeonholed. You do not interrogate an "accountable unit" in front of public members and talking to a CMO girl at the same time. The big world ain't that simple.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation.
My question about the "healthiness" of it is from the point of the user, not the subject. Looking at it in a detached way, I feel it easily ends up much like a facsimile of autistic masking. There are moments where the vast majority of my emotional reactions end up being "toolbox emotions" to the point that I sometimes do not even know what would have been my "genuine" reaction.

This is compounded by the fact that the technique (by its very essence) was always geared to appear different depending on who you interact with. I would use very different "tools" for the public, different for SO peers, different for CMO girls... and even several different ones for "accountable units", depending how high their anxiety was.

So I sometimes find myself adopting different tools for different groups of people in my life and in my company. I often realize this only at a moment where suddenly all these groups appear at the same place at the same time and mix (IE: big company party).
That's where the confusion happens. Talk about a "chameleon on tartan" moment :unsure:

In scientology the various groups are always "neatly" pigeonholed. You do not interrogate an "accountable unit" in front of public members and talking to a CMO girl at the same time. The big world ain't that simple.
Fair enough ... I am but a simple soul though and if something is working for me and not harming anyone else, I'll keep using it until it doesn't.

:)
 
Top