Ex-Scientologist Research for School

Riddick

I clap to no man
I want to point out something, and it is important. From this article:


"Religious-based Ethos
A long history of debate over ethos is evident in the rhetorical tradition. The term has been characterized by a tension among what qualities we ought praise and condemn. Aristotle included practical intelligence, moral virtue, and goodwill, in his conception of ethos. The Romans later added concepts such as modesty, temperance, honor, and courage. In the centuries following, the construct has grown exponentially more complex, including more modern concepts such as dynamism and charisma. Ethos is, at its core, a perception—an illusion wrought by a rhetor in selecting appropriate and sometimes inappropriate words, artifacts, and actions, in order to gain the trust of the other. To this extent, Aristotle asserted that "this should result from the speech, not from a previous opinion that the speaker is a certain kind of person" (Kennedy 38).

Aristotle established his idea of credibility sans reputation so that those without a known reputation might have an equal chance to defend themselves in the court system. However, it seems overly facile to assume that reputation was not instrumental in persuading an audience. Indeed, in the classical agora, reputation—what was commonly known about a person's prior actions and family history—was a form of initial ethos.2 Audience members could verify these assertions if the community were small enough. On the other hand, the online audience is dramatically larger. And since the Web environment was created without traditional gatekeeping controls such as editorial boards, there is little way of verifying the words of another, especially if there is no feedback mechanism such as an email link or a telephone number. Moreover, it is difficult to assess the recency of information since there is often no way to verify how long the information has been online. Even if there is a last-updated date on the site, verfying the date's accuracy is difficult. It seems reasonable, then, that establishing trust between an online group and its users may be more difficult than it might be offline, in a face-to-face situation. Despite these obstacles, religions that wish to go online must shape their identity by appealing to what might be called a traditional view of religious character while simultaneously filtering those traditional appeals through the new environment and it technologies.

Eighteenth century epistemologist and minister George Campbell spoke to what might be called traditional religious ethos. Campbell argued that the preacher-orator had the hardest job convincing an audience, since the audience received its moral guidance from the orator. The orator must exist without flaw. To facilitate this image, the orator had to "excite some desire or passion in the hearers" and then "satisfy their judgment that there is a connexion between the action to which he would persuade them, and the gratification of the desire or passion which he excites." Religious ethos is one of authority and must be established by embracing moderation, candor, and benevolence. "The preacher," Campbell noted, "is the minister of grace, the herald of divine mercy to ignorant, sinful, and erring men [and women] and also the man [or woman] of justice and wrath." The preacher-orator, therefore, must exemplify the pinnacle of morality and show concern for the community in order to persuade its audience.

Any religious group may construct such a communal ethos through actualization, projection, and association. First, it can actualize ethos demonstratively or, in other words, perform it for the audience. It is an ethos of linguistic action. When speakers point to the charitable deeds that they have done in the past, it is an attempt to alter the perception of their reputations by actualizing ethos. The strategy is typical of much discourse, not just religious communication, but also in forensic and deliberative rhetoric. Lawyers, for example, construct witnesses' and defendants' credibility by their listing accomplishments and deeds, or, simply stated, prior action. If the speaker is unable to talk about the positive deeds that he or she has accomplished, his or her ethos is weakened. Similarly, religious leaders must demonstrate to the audience moral virtue and a concern for the community by talking about past actions that have helped the welfare of the larger community.
Projection is a second vehicle through which ethos may be created. If one looks at the speaker's discursive choices, the clothes that the individual wears, the speaker's mannerisms, for instance, one has a certain view of that person's character. These attributes constitute part of the performance and are stylistic choices that affect the speaker's appearance of authority, virtue, and so on. Projected ethos is not created through words about prior action, but is fashioned through immediate verbal and nonverbal cues. Black gives us a hint:
When, for example, the judge is robed, the garment neutralizes the individual appearance; it depersonalizes the wearer. The person is concealed. Similarly, the white sheet of the Klansman obscures an angry redneck, and proposes instead an embodiment of social interests and moral emotions. It is, indeed, not the person but the role that is elevated and the subordination of the person to the costume assists this process. (136)
Rhetors who attempt to establish credibility by showcasing the persons with whom they transact and relate are projecting a third type of ethos—one created through association. This formation of ethos is key for online groups. If they are be able to demonstrate that they retain a "community" of followers who believe or trust in their religious belief system, it seems reasonable that they may be more successful in attracting outsiders. Depending upon to whom and how successful the connection is made, a religious group may be perceived credible beyond that which may have been possible by listing past deeds or its historical record. Moreover, on the Web, links from an organization's website to another can figuratively and literally link one group's ethos to a community of others, which may help facilitate building this form of credibility.

Several scholars help us understand how an associative ethos might work. Hart et al. contend that one method for improving one's perception of competency, an element of ethos, is to associate oneself with other high-credibility sources. Osborn and Osborn suggest that in basic public speaking, citing or using experts to strengthen one's speech or position "allows you to borrow ethos from those who have earned it through their distinguished and widely recognized work" (155). Logue and Miller state that "rhetorical statuses arise when communicators position themselves to each other, as each takes account of salient qualities of self and other" (20). These authors further argue that "each person at any time has many rhetorical statuses, depending upon the extent of that person's communicative relationships" (21). The types of connections made to other people or other communities can substantially affect the degree of perceived credibility."

Namely this: "To this extent, Aristotle asserted that "this should result from the speech, not from a previous opinion that the speaker is a certain kind of person" (Kennedy 38). "

What this means is actually why Hubbard did lots of recorded lectures, those were his speeches, his ethos. He used them for two reason's, 1. to get ethos, and 2. to make money from every member as every member has to buy his speeches. They are called lecture series. This is also why Hubbard wanted to protect "the image of LRH" at all costs, this gets into OSA, or Office of Special Affairs.
 

The Oracle

Not the same Oracle from a decade ago
Thank you so much for your answer, we really appreciate it! I am 21. So far we have been using the scientology organizations website as a resource but also watching some of the popular documentaries such as “Going Clear” and the recent Leah Remini one!
Can you tell me what YOU think about Scientology
Like before you read the Religious Cloaking version
Make sure you all know WHAT religious cloaking is and what it does fir the “church” of Scientology
Check this out


We all know what the propaganda says it is
We were victims of it

Get a little personal please
Tell us what you heard, what people your age say about it
Don’t miss a beat either🍿

Did you see Anonymous and what they did to Scientology?


I gave you A LOT of info and you gave me your age
 
Last edited:

atuss

New member
What is your conclusion so far? Or working ongoing hypothesis? In comparing the two.

I am about to turn 62 years old, next year in January.
We are just doing an exploratory study on Scientology! So no hypothesis, just facts and information we have found.
 

atuss

New member
Can you tell me what YOU think about Scientology
Like before you read the Religious Cloaking version
Make sure you all know WHAT religious cloaking is and what it does fir the “church” of Scientology
Check this out


We all know what the propaganda says it is
We were victims of it

Get a little personal please
Tell us what you heard, what people your age say about it
Don’t miss a beat either🍿

Did you see Anonymous and what they did to Scientology?


I gave you A LOT of info and you gave me your age

For sure! We are studying acts that are considered to be deviant, aka acts that go against the norm. For our final project we decided to do Scientology. I was never convinced that "going clear" was possible, neither were my friends. When speaking with a current scientologist we were told that our anxieties and mental illness were not valid and were not real, and that with auditing we could be without those mental illnesses. This is not something I enjoyed hearing, as I struggle deeply with this and battle it every day. However, I can only imagine how this would have appealed to me when I was going through my darkest phase and would do anything to get rid of it. So, I understand why some people join it. I searched everywhere for a discussion board like this where I could hear from people who left Scientology because with all religions, people do leave. I especially was in shock with having to pay for auditing, that is a prime example of taking advantage of people. I found it pretty hard to believe that people ever do go "Clear" and wanted to hear first hand accounts of leaving Scientology as I am sure it was not easy. I thank you all so much for responding to my discussion board. This gave us a lot of clarity about Scientology and we are very excited to relay it to they rest of our class!
 

The Oracle

Not the same Oracle from a decade ago
For sure! We are studying acts that are considered to be deviant, aka acts that go against the norm. For our final project we decided to do Scientology. I was never convinced that "going clear" was possible, neither were my friends. When speaking with a current scientologist we were told that our anxieties and mental illness were not valid and were not real, and that with auditing we could be without those mental illnesses. This is not something I enjoyed hearing, as I struggle deeply with this and battle it every day. However, I can only imagine how this would have appealed to me when I was going through my darkest phase and would do anything to get rid of it. So, I understand why some people join it. I searched everywhere for a discussion board like this where I could hear from people who left Scientology because with all religions, people do leave. I especially was in shock with having to pay for auditing, that is a prime example of taking advantage of people. I found it pretty hard to believe that people ever do go "Clear" and wanted to hear first hand accounts of leaving Scientology as I am sure it was not easy. I thank you all so much for responding to my discussion board. This gave us a lot of clarity about Scientology and we are very excited to relay it to they rest of our class!
Scientology IS mental illness.
 

TheSneakster

Well-known member
Here is another item to add to your list of things to consider:
Excuse me, sir, FYI, the Psychological Newsletter was not a peer-reviewed medical science journal publication and careful examination of the linked article reveals that that "test" did not meet even the barest minimum requirements for a scientific study.

The sample size one (one preclear) all by itself fails to meet the minimum standards for Statistical Inference. In other words, regardless of the results or failure on that one preclear, no valid conclusion about Dianetics in general is supported by that "study".
 

pineapple

仮面の男
Hi @atuss.
Are there specific sub-cultures within Scientology? We know there are those that work closely with the higher-ups, but are certain members in scientology divided by certain aspects?
Here's an excellent post about subcultures within scn called "The Scientological Onion." A very good explanation of how scngsts at different levels perceive scn.

What was the final force that made you leave Scientology? Was it difficult?
POVERTY was the final force that made me leave. I'd been on staff for 6 years and I was tired of being broke, working long hours and having almost no free time. And it seemed we weren't really accomplishing much of scn's stated mission of clearing the planet, either.

Once I left staff I was treated as something of a pariah by most of my former teammates. This made me see that these sngsts weren't the enlightened beings they claimed to be. I began questioning the whole thing and I was out of scn 6 months later.

Yes, it was difficult, but nowhere near as difficult as it is for some. My scn experience was relatively mild compared to others.
How has this discussion board brought you peace with your decision to leave?
I left scn in 1981. I found this board in 2012, so I'd already been out of scn for over 30 years. I was already at peace with my decision to leave, long before. The main thing I like about this board is the ability to talk about scn with others who understand what you're talking about and don't necessarily think you must be nuts because you were once in a cult.
Do you think scientology is beneficial for some people?
I do think some actual self-improvement is possible in scn, in the early stages. I still think TR's 0-4 were useful for me. (These are the drills you do on the Communications Course, usually the first course newbies do.) Since I was on staff and trained as an auditor, I did these drills almost every day for the duration of my time on staff. I think they actually did improve my ability to communicate effectively and they gave me a big boost in self-confidence.

IMO these early drills are the best scn has to offer and it's downhill from there. I definitely would NOT advise anyone to get involved in scn under any circumstances. It can ruin your life.
 
Last edited:

Bill

Well-known member
Excuse me, sir, FYI, the Psychological Newsletter was not a peer-reviewed medical science journal publication and careful examination of the linked article reveals that that "test" did not meet even the barest minimum requirements for a scientific study.

The sample size one (one preclear) all by itself fails to meet the minimum standards for Statistical Inference. In other words, regardless of the results or failure on that one preclear, no valid conclusion about Dianetics in general is supported by that "study".
That's silly. It was never required for anyone to disprove Hubbard's theories. It was HIS job to prove them - and he never did. Ever.
 
Last edited:

TheSneakster

Well-known member
That's silly. It was never required for anyone to disprove Hubbard's theories. It was HIS job to prove them - and he never did. Ever.
Well, nobody has ever seen me claim any of them were true, factual and/or accurate since I joined the Internet discussion back in 1993, so you've just committed a classic red herring fallacy.

Hubbard didn't submit any of his work for scientific peer-review, sure. That is well known, but maybe not to the original poster.

There since there are no protocols for scientific verification of purely subjective mental or spiritual phenomena, that is an irrelevant point in the matter of critics citing that particular "study" as if it were valid science.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Well, nobody has ever seen me claim any of them were true, factual and/or accurate since I joined the Internet discussion back in 1993, so you've just committed a classic red herring fallacy.

Hubbard didn't submit any of his work for scientific peer-review, sure. That is well known, but maybe not to the original poster.

There since there are no protocols for scientific verification of purely subjective mental or spiritual phenomena, that is an irrelevant point in the matter of critics citing that particular "study" as if it were valid science.
You do not understand what I wrote nor do you appear to understand the Red Herring Fallacy. But let that pass.
 

TheSneakster

Well-known member
You do not understand what I wrote nor do you appear to understand the Red Herring Fallacy. But let that pass.
I understand perfectly well that you wish to change the subject from "that 'study' is not valid peer-reviewed science" to "hubbard sucks".

On point response, please: was the paper about Dianetics, published in Psychological Newsletter and cited above ever published in an actual peer-reviewed science journal? If so, why isn't any critic citing the peer-reviewed version, eh?
 

Bill

Well-known member
I understand perfectly well that you wish to change the subject from "that 'study' is not valid peer-reviewed science" to "hubbard sucks".

On point response, please: was the paper about Dianetics, published in Psychological Newsletter and cited above ever published in an actual peer-reviewed science journal? If so, why isn't any critic citing the peer-reviewed version, eh?
Please! You are making a huge big deal about this meaningless "study". Why?

Really, why? It's a fact that there is absolutly no proof for Hubbard's theories. Do you think if you religiously debunk this "study", it acts like proof of Hubbard's stuff?

Hint: It doesn't.
 

TheSneakster

Well-known member
Do you think if you religiously debunk this "study", it acts like proof of Hubbard's stuff?

Hint: It doesn't.
Straw Man Fallacy. If I actually meant that, I would say so.

My actual point is that there have been no peer-reviewed scientific studies of Dianetics or Scientology. So these subjects are neither proven nor disproven by the Scientific Community. Neither have they ever been proven harmful nor proven beneficial by any scientifically valid study.

And, by the way, Steve Hassan, the Father of the anti-Cult Movement, has yet to experimentally verify any of his claims about the existence of mind control (or any form of subjugation of human will, regardless of the label used) with any scientifically valid peer-review.

You see, I'm just applying the exact same standards of evidence to both sides of the debate. That's the difference between a genuine critic and a bigoted propagandist, amigo.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Straw Man Fallacy. If I actually meant that, I would say so.

My actual point is that there have been no peer-reviewed scientific studies of Dianetics or Scientology. So these subjects are neither proven nor disproven by the Scientific Community. Neither have they ever been proven harmful nor proven beneficial by any scientifically valid study.

And, by the way, Steve Hassan, the Father of the anti-Cult Movement, has yet to experimentally verify any of his claims about the existence of mind control (or any form of subjugation of human will, regardless of the label used) with any scientifically valid peer-review.

You see, I'm just applying the exact same standards of evidence to both sides of the debate. That's the difference between a genuine critic and a bigoted propagandist, amigo.
Well, I know you believe that.
 

Dotey OT

Dis-Membered
I know that for me, there was a point where I thought a registrar or auditor knew something that I wanted to know. I went from not really knowing if there was truly something good about scientology to trying to make more money in order to pay for it after taking a couple intro courses and getting about 100 hours of intro "life repair" auditing. That didn't stick, then I goofed around a few years and didn't do any further services until I did the purification rundown.

Whatever they fed me in the intro sessions didn't fully get into my skull.

It took being on course, reading ksw 1, getting a few events into my system, before I shut off my alertness.

The next thing I knew, I was looking at the doubt formula, and interpreting that as the "proof" that the most survival thing one could do was to join staff.

Then I spent the next seven years enduring all sorts of stupidity. No money, long hours, permission being required to live my own life outside of my post.

It's doubtful that anyone can quantify accurately or study fully the effect scn has on mortals.
 

atuss

New member
Thank you all so much for your responses! It has been very enlightening and I have been able to learn a lot. My last question, which might be sensitive so I am not in a dire need of an answer for this, but what were you told about they death of Lisa McPherson and the disappearance of Shelly MisCavige?
 

Dotey OT

Dis-Membered
We were told it was like someone dying at church, which undoubtedly happens every week in the U.S. Also we were told Lisa Mcpherson's family was pursuing it for money. I was at flag when it all went down.
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
Straw Man Fallacy. If I actually meant that, I would say so.

My actual point is that there have been no peer-reviewed scientific studies of Dianetics or Scientology. So these subjects are neither proven nor disproven by the Scientific Community. Neither have they ever been proven harmful nor proven beneficial by any scientifically valid study.

And, by the way, Steve Hassan, the Father of the anti-Cult Movement, has yet to experimentally verify any of his claims about the existence of mind control (or any form of subjugation of human will, regardless of the label used) with any scientifically valid peer-review.

You see, I'm just applying the exact same standards of evidence to both sides of the debate. That's the difference between a genuine critic and a bigoted propagandist, amigo.
"My actual point is that there have been no peer-reviewed scientific studies of Dianetics or Scientology. So these subjects are neither proven nor disproven by the Scientific Community. Neither have they ever been proven harmful nor proven beneficial by any scientifically valid study. "

Well, there you go. I conclude Scientology, the study of science or knowledge, to be not peer reviewed hence scientology has no validity.
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
Thank you all so much for your responses! It has been very enlightening and I have been able to learn a lot. My last question, which might be sensitive so I am not in a dire need of an answer for this, but what were you told about they death of Lisa McPherson and the disappearance of Shelly MisCavige?
When I was in, I was never told about Lisa. and I actually never knew DM had a wife.
 
Top