Why do intelligent people join?

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation.
Social scientists (you can decide for yourself if Sociology is a science) studied cult recruiting methods in San Francisco in the late 60's including Scientology and Moonies and suggested that people join groups like that when they are mentally vulnerable and distanced from family, elders, community members. This happens to travelers, students attending schools away from home, run-aways, and the like.

They found when people are alone in unfamiliar surrounds and getting love-bombed, they are more susceptible to persuasions.
That is exactly why I got dragged into the cult.

Thank you for posting that ... when looking back it is kind of obvious, but I rarely look back too deeply and hadn't thought of it that way.
 

Veda

Well-known member
That is exactly why I got dragged into the cult.

Thank you for posting that ... when looking back it is kind of obvious, but I rarely look back too deeply and hadn't thought of it that way.
No doubt many fit the profile described above: lonely, away from home, vulnerable.

But many did not. I was young, but never abandoned my "wog" friends and my interest in other subjects.

Many involved were older. Burroughs was 45 when he became involved.

Cohen was 34.

Mike Heron and Robin Williamson were 34.

Hal Puthoff was 34. Ingo Swann was 37.

All were successful in their respective fields.

And they all saw something that made them want to explore Scientology further.
 
Last edited:

Riddick

I clap to no man
Social scientists (you can decide for yourself if Sociology is a science) studied cult recruiting methods in San Francisco in the late 60's including Scientology and Moonies and suggested that people join groups like that when they are mentally vulnerable and distanced from family, elders, community members. This happens to travelers, students attending schools away from home, run-aways, and the like.

They found when people are alone in unfamiliar surrounds and getting love-bombed, they are more susceptible to persuasions.
well, that's not my story. I think it's also a lot of peoples not story. I didn't join, I only wanted to go "clear" by reading Hubbard's persuasive book DMSMH. I was sucked in and my lack of logic, actually, failed me. It's kind of funny, Hubbard in his logic series said Look, don't listen", and yet we exmembers while in never did really Look, are there any clears?

Did the social scientists research more on why people left the moonies or scientology?
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
No doubt many fit the profile described above: lonely, away from home, vulnerable.

But many did not. I was young, but never abandoned my "wog" friends and my interest in other subjects.

Many involved were older. Burroughs was 45 when he became involved.

Cohen was 34.

Mike Heron and Robbin Williamson were 34.

Hal Puthoff was 34. Ingo Swann was 37.

Al were successful in their respective fields.

All they all saw something that made them want to explore Scientology further.
In the very beginning, in the Heinlein letters, Hubbard and Campbell tried to get Heinlein involved, he was curious and very interested in Hubbards/Campbells ideas of dianetics. Heinlein questioned them both and said he had a wait and see attitude. Smart man, he never "joined".
 

programmer_guy

True ex-Scientologist
This is what enlightened me:


"Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself. "

The first was Hubbard's personal character. Before the internet, we didn't really know the character of Hubbard. And many before during the early years didn't know either, they relied on his personal character by words, spoken or written. Little did all these very early people know the facts of Hubbard's life, they were persuaded by his words. He said he was scientists, a philosopher, a engineer, etc.

The second we all know of Hubbard putting the audience into a frame of mind. The first was putting the audience into the frame of mind that one could erase aberrations of the mind, dianetics, the modern science of mental health.

Scientology is a follow up on the soul or spirit and putting one into the frame of mind of OT, operating thetan, or past lives and one could have recall of past lives and also return from death.

The third is the endless success stories given by members and by hubbard in his endless words, these I would classify as apparent proof.

'seeming real or true, but not necessarily so.'
In the past, I have agreed with you a lot on these points. :)

However, the one point that is missing in this explanation is the brain endorphin effect from SCN auditing.
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
In the past, I have agreed with you a lot on these points. :)

However, the one point that is missing in this explanation is the brain endorphin effect from SCN auditing.
How do you explain the dianetic auditing?
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member

.

Veda posted this photo.





That promo piece makes no sense whatsoever.

The last thing Scientology management wants Scientologists to do is to "DARE" do anything that is not already "approved in writing".

And even more ferocious opposition would greet any Scientologist who even thought of "thinking for yourself". Scientology's end product is the diametric opposite of that. You get candy, love-bombing and applause only when you "think like Ron".

Just for a creative calisthenic, I tried to imagine in what world that propaganda poster could actually be factual. I think I figured it out.

SCENARIO: The ideal orgs across the planet have been ravaged by covid shutdowns. Scientologists are blowing like mad and refusing to come into the org. Because of the lowest-ever level of Ethics, the ethics-gradients need to be ramped up to highest-ever ferocity! However, but even lower conditions assignments and com evs are not scaring the public enough to get them to resume making donations and continuing their Bridge. The cult is desperate to generate money, more money and much more money. They need an even higher ethics gradient, something that will generate money! Ergo, Scn management invests half of the reserves ($1.5 billion) to acquire an international company that owns/manages the largest portfolio and chain of pet cemeteries. This creates an unprecedented investment windfall for Scientology!!!

Do I really need to explain why? LOL.

.
 
Last edited:

Veda

Well-known member
In the very beginning, in the Heinlein letters, Hubbard and Campbell tried to get Heinlein involved, he was curious and very interested in Hubbards/Campbells ideas of dianetics. Heinlein questioned them both and said he had a wait and see attitude. Smart man, he never "joined".
Campbell joined but didn't hang around for long.

By March 1951 he was already disaffected, writing: "In a healthy and growing science, there are many men who are recognized as being competent in the field, and no one man dominates the work... to the extent Dianetics is dependent on one man, it is a cult. To the extent that it is built by many minds and many workers it is a science."

A.E. van Vogt, also in Campbell's circle, was involved with the California Association of Dianetic Auditors, later becoming its president. In 1951, a dispute arose over what words to use on course certificates. The CADA wanted Certified Dianetic Auditor, and Hubbard insisted upon Hubbard Dianetics Auditor. Finance was also an issue. The CADA was probably the first "squirrel" group, providing auditing without Hubbard's authorization, and, inevitably, was slandered as "communist," etc. to both the Scientology membership and in, at least, one of Hubbard's many bizarre letters to the FBI.

A. E. van Vogt's 1948 novel, The World of Null A, seems to have inspired Hubbard. Link to a concise synopsis

Another novelist, Aldous Huxley, along with his wife, was audited by Hubbard in 1950. Huxley's Doors of Perception - an account of his experience on mescaline - was published 1954. Hubbard, soon after, in his Professional Auditors Bulletin, recommended Doors of Perception as "a good book."

Years later, by inference, and retroactively, Huxley would be classified as an "LSD zombie."

There were some intelligent people who found some of the ideas and techniques, presented in Hubbard's writings, to be interesting, and, one after the other, they were, eventually, denounced, attacked, and/or officially erased.

Meanwhile, Hubbard continued building his cult.
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
Campbell joined but didn't hang around for long.

By March 1951 he was already disaffected, writing: "In a healthy and growing science, there are many men who are recognized as being competent in the field, and no one man dominates the work... to the extent Dianetics is dependent on one man, it is a cult. To the extent that it is built by many minds and many workers it is a science."

A.E. van Vogt, also in Campbell's circle, was involved with the California Association of Dianetic Auditors, later becoming its president. In 1951, a dispute arose over what words to use on course certificates. The CADA wanted Certified Dianetic Auditor, and Hubbard insisted upon Hubbard Dianetics Auditor. Finance was also an issue. The CADA was probably the first "squirrel" group, providing auditing without Hubbard's authorization, and, inevitably, was slandered as "communist," etc. to both the Scientology membership and in, at least, one of Hubbard's many bizarre letters to the FBI.

A. E. van Vogt's 1948 novel, The World of Null A, seems to have inspired Hubbard. Link to a concise synopsis

Another novelist, Aldous Huxley, along with his wife, was audited by Hubbard in 1950. Huxley's Doors of Perception - an account of his experience on mescaline - was published 1954. Hubbard, soon after, in his Professional Auditors Bulletin, recommended Doors of Perception as "a good book."

Years later, by inference, and retroactively, Huxley would be classified as an "LSD zombie."

There were some intelligent people who found some of the ideas and techniques, presented in Hubbard's writings, to be interesting, and, one after the other, they were, eventually, denounced, attacked, and/or officially erased.

Meanwhile, Hubbard continued building his cult.
good post Veda, that's what I'm saying also, but from the rhetoric angle, as an addition.

Interesting, Heinlein questioned Campbell, before Dianetics was published. He questioned Campbell if dianetics auditing cured his problems and the people Campbell was auditing. My guess is that Heinleins questioning finally got thru to him. Although I think Campbell was still into woo woo after he left.

And ya, Hubbard eventually figured out how to wove into his so called tech, getting rid of people who had a open mind (PTS, and maybe converting them or changing their minds) and too critical thinking people (SP's) by using reverse rhetoric.

I also don't think Campbell joined, he was part of the development of dianetics and wanted in on the money and fame that he could get.
 
Look Campbell was correct "To the extent that it is built by many minds and many workers it is a science" people who aren't in the sciences really don't get that a lot of science is people debating their study findings against each other, it's cooperative in a way scientology/dianetics isn't (having done both time in the Sea Org and later after having left in a few STEM fields). You have to be ok with sometimes being completely wrong and being in friendly arguments with your superiors.

In scio they'll let you get a little innovative in the "secular" ABLE sphere to a degree, but it always has to come back to Hubbard and his writings, if it's not in their you can't do it. PERIODT. In the sciences I've literally told profs they were wrong, showed them examples and they changed their ways of doing things. Not in my entire Sea Org career did anything remotely similar to that happen. If it's not Hubbard it's automatically considered wrong, even if you point out like something small like say cleaning windows there are methods that exist now that didn't when Hubbard wrote the policy which are more effective than newspaper and that newspapers use different colored inks now with chemicals that are just as capable of creating smears as windex is because they have similar chemical base. In the normal world a person would be like, thanking you for showing them a better way.

Most of the people I know who are ex's and smart were all either born-in or (like me) recruited during a highly emotionally vulnerable time. Long and short of it.
 

Barile

Well-known member
LRH, Postmodernism and why I joined
I'm not an expert about philosophy, so take my comments with a grain of salt.

Postmodernism -- and relativism -- were around during Hubbard's early adult life when he
was reading various books about life and the mind. This is the easiest explanation
I could find for postmodernism:

Postmodernism
Postmodernism is a way of thinking about culture, philosophy, art and many other things. The term has been used in many different ways at different times, but there are some things in common.​
Postmodernism says that there is no real truth. It says that knowledge is always made or invented and not discovered. Because knowledge is made by people, a person cannot know something with certainty - all ideas and facts are 'believed' instead of 'known'. People believe that they know what the truth is, but they will think that the truth is something different later. This is the opposite of 'objectivity', which says that the truth is always there and people have to discover it.​
Since postmodernism says that the truth is just a thing that people invent, people can believe different things and think it is the truth and all be right. Postmodernism says that one person should not try to make another person believe what he believes, because it means nothing to say that one belief is right and the other is wrong.​
Source: Wikipedia

Hubbard seemed to have been pushing variations of this concept throughout the early 50's
and it was not a new idea developed by Hubbard. He just had a different twist on it.

LRH 4th ACC Lecture: Evaluation 1954
Fair Use Excerpt
In essence, what you want somebody to do is to get up to a point where he can make​
a postulate and have that as perfect truth.​
. . .​
They're hounding you back into the corral of agreement. The what happened happened.​
And the only thing that happened was what happened in the physical universe. Well that​
isn't the only thing that happens. All this agreement with the past adds up to, in the common​
definition, truth. Truth is defined in the common definition as agreeing with the past. Of​
saying only what happened in the physical universe as what happened. But you limit​
happenings to those things which happen in the physical universe. That's what truth is​
in the common parlance.​
Now this truth has another side. The greatest truth for you is what you say is true.​
Now that's the greatest truth you'll ever have, as far as truth is concerned.​

Now, I'll say that postmodernism has always been an attractive concept for certain academics,
young college students, and as of today, many politicians. Many kinds of "intelligent" folks.

We could say that we're currently living in a "cultural revolution" where many traditional truths are
being questioned and up for debate and change. I guess this is where postmodernism in the extreme
ends up in a society. Erase everything and create anew . . . like was attempted in the French Revolution.

You wake up every day and the world is a little different. This changed, that new law, this new social norm.
I just had to stop paying attention to it all.

That said, when I was a college student, I found Hubbard's postmodern twist about reality and truth
an alluring concept. The world was in shambles and I was drifting aimlessly with no good path forward
for my life. (Not uncommon for the early 20's and college.) Hubbard provided hope and a form of "magical
thinking" and escape that was irresistible at the time. If it all worked as advertised.

I too could get to a point where I could decide, decree (postulate) and have my own independent truth and
reality and base my life on that. Sounded good. Sounded great, actually.

If you look around today, you see these same desires to create new truths to replace all the old. To live in the
subjective inner world of the mind with a new and different set of rules based on one's own invention, one's
personal desires, and utopian dreams. And not be shackled by the past or history. Or even the reality out there.
To ignore all history and thousands of years of observing immutable behaviors of human nature and build
a whole new world from the ground up after erasing all the old.

End of rambling for now. Might say more later. This is hard to explain. Just so cerebral. :coolwink:

Just throwing down for viewing and comments by the more intelligent folks here. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Added a summary here.

Well, I'm not sure where you stand. If I had to put it to music, it might sound like this..

 

Barile

Well-known member
There are different types of intelligence. Some very good students completely lack common sense.
umm. they are probably unrelated cousins. since nobody got the joke of my Que sera sera suggestion, let's try another.
Pascal's wager ( Pascal's wager - Wikipedia ). But instead of the argument being belief in God and the odds and potential consequences, substitute Ron for God.
Here's the synopsis of an Atheist Debate of the fallacy of the wager. I think it may ring a bell.
If you reel it back to the beginning, there's even a scientology meme, how appropriate.

 

Barile

Well-known member
L Ron told us......we were the most intelligent people on the planet.... :D
true, and somebody went along with it. and then a few others. and then, some new guy walks in the door and this is what happened:

of note, this experiment was done with no reward, no punishment, and no discussion. it merely was run with no obvious pressure or persuasion.
what happens when you add promised rewards or fear? Intelligent people? ya, I'd argue it's about suggestibility of people. I did a hypnosis class
run by a stage hypnotist, who observed that the easiest guy to hypnotise was the one who asserted that he could not be hypnotised. the corollary being the guy who asserts he would always give the correct answer to the line length question, regardless of what anybody else said, which also proved to be false most of the time.
 
Last edited:

Xenu Xenu Xenu

Well-known member
When I got in, it was all about the introductory course. It didn't take long though before I wanted to be a keyed out Scientologist like the staff that recruited me, badgered me, hounded me, and guilt tripped me. You could say I joined Scientology before I even finished the intro course. I was very young at the time. Hubbard never conned me into joining. It was the pushy fanatic brainwashed staff at the local center who did all that. But I guess in the end it was Hubbard who brainwashed them. All roads lead to Ron.

Oh wait...you were asking, "Why do intelligent people join?"

Never mind.

While I am at it though, I did know a guy who was a real whiz kid scientist who joined our local org and became a cultie. He used to criticize Hubbard and say he was full of shit. He was right. The guy knew his sciences such as biology and he knew when Hubbard was talking out of his ass. It still didn't stop him from buying tons of auditing and training. It appears he was willing to look past all the bullshit because he thought that there was something valuable in Scientology. He bought into all the reactive mind bs and even the past lives stuff.

I also knew engineers who were smart as whips and they told me that they got into the cult after reading nonsense like HISTORY OF MAN. One of them even joined the Sea Org. I have no answer for that. It is weird. It takes all kinds.

Perhaps we should just take our hat off to old Hubbard. He was in the right place at the right time. When DIANETICS was selling like hotcakes; WORLD'S IN COLLISION was selling like crazy as well. Pseudo Science was having a good old time in 1950. He was lucky as well. There always seemed to be people who would help him out when things went wrong. He was not only lucky but he was a smart and charming man, (he would have made a great pimp), who was getting even better at fooling people as the years went by. He was born to be a cult leader and he was a great one, unfortunately. Even the copycats who came after him were never as good as him. Hip Hip Hooray.
 
Top