---

From: eastin@locus.com (Dick Eastin)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology, or one person's behaviour traits...
Message-ID: <1991Aug12.184224.725314@locus.com>
Date: 12 Aug 91 18:42:24 GMT
References: <CHRISTIR.91Aug10162240@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
Lines: 157

In article <CHRISTIR.91Aug10162240@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> christir@mentor.cc.purdue.edu writes: >the following are some descriptions of behaviour i have observed in >one or more scientologists. i'm wondering if someone could tell me if >this is related to scientology...

Related? In most cases, yes. Good behavior for a scientologist or anyone? Mostly no. Conclusions evidenced in the examples, are not necessarily accurate or informed. But, others may have similar questions, so I'll try to make some short responses. My apologies if they are not fully satisfying. If you have a specific question about what I say you can e-mail me directly.

>1) not responding to someone who is arguing with you. (example: >husband and wife have a fight... the wife (a scientologist) does not >argue, but simply sits and waits for the husband to finish)

This is an alteration of the basic idea that two people both talking to or at each other at the same time don't hear so well what the other is saying. This is popularly done at an emotional state which prevents understanding as well. The basic communication principle is that one person talks while the other really listens and then the other talks,etc. The idea being that if they listen to what the other is saying there will be better communication and understanding. So to finish the example above, when the husband finishes, the wife says, "So, you're upset because I=20didn't take your suit to the cleaners when you asked, so it would be ready for your important meeting today?" To which he replies, with some relief, "Thats right!!" She says, "I'm sorry, I forgot about it when I had to run little Billy to the hospital emergency room during breakfast." etc. etc.

>2) an idea that if you have a problem it's your fault. (example: you >do not like your job, therefore you do not understand your job)

There may be more than one principle here, depending on the meanings of "problem" and "not like" and "not understand." Problem =3D two or more opposing forces, ideas, intentions, purposes, etc. Something a person feels something must be done about. Something which fixates attention. Often resulting from incomplete knowledge or communication.

Simply, if you are putting both sides of the problem in place you are "at fault" or, deleting the idea of blame from "fault", you are cause or responsible. If you are putting one side there then you are causing that. If you have nothing to do with it, then thats probably not the problem and you need to define what the real problem is, more exactly. The concept of gradients or degrees of things may need to be applied also.

>3) an idea that if two people can't resolve a problem then someone >else must be at fault (example: boy and girl get into a fight, and >can't resolve it. boy decides that it must be because the girl's >father hates him.)

This is a slight alteration of what is known as the third party law - wherein a third part promotes the conflict between two others by lying to each of them about the other or the issues. (This is a paraphrase and not complete.) The symptom is not "can't resolve a problem" but rather an unresolvable conflict between two people, groups, etc. which does not improve until the, more or less, hidden source of the conflict is discovered. Just the discovery, which is "true" for both parties, will relieve or resolve fully the conflict. Once again the notion of degrees of things and a full knowledge of the mechanics of life and the mind are necessary to the analysis of the real situation.

>4) a belief all that it takes to change a bad situation is for it to >change (example: the schools are bad around here. stop teaching that >way and use scientology methods)

This is too simplistic - what is the real situation. Using workable principles, what is the next successive step-wise improvement that can be made in that situation.

Separate subject: are scientology methods better? Study them and evaluate for yourself. Read Basic Study Manual, Learning Book (published by Delphi Education), or take the basic study course at a Scientology organization.

>5) when talking to someone, if they say something you don't agree >with simply respond with something like "ok" (example: father doesn't >want son to move in with a girl. when father tells his son this son >responds with "ok". son moves in with girl anyway.)

The boy has extracted one element of good communication, the acknowledge- ment that one has heard and understood what was said, and misapplied it to the situation, hoping that he will avoid the responsibility and need for dealing with his father. This usage would tend to antagonize the listener and that is the exact opposite of the intention of scientology's effort to improve communication and understanding.

>6) a tendency to use words in ways other than standard definitions.

If by "tendency" is meant a characteristic character flaw, then no. Scientologists use special nomenclature appropriate to the subject, just like all specialists.

>7) a tendency to deny what someone has read because they might not >have understood everything. (example: someone reads something in HCOB. >scientologist claims their conclusions don't mean anything because >they may not have understood what pc means)

The basic datum is that when you pass a word or symbol that you don't know or understand correctly, especially when you don't know you don't know, you will not fully grasp what follows. This worsens to where you loose whole sections of a page or chapter and can be followed by a loss of interest and an attempt to make less of, or to degrade the subject. (This is a personal paraphrase combining several principles and not a specific Hubbard reference, which I should have used, had I had one handy. He states things simpler than this.)

>8) refusal to explain something in scientology because there would be >too many words that the other person would not understand.

It probably means that they have insufficient english vocabulary and understanding of Scientology to convey the ideas or they don't like to talk to challenging people or a dozen other individual reasons.

Regardless, the best understanding of something is that gained by direct reading, testing, and personal experience. (Strangely, Hubbard recommends this! :-)) Next best would be someone well educated in the area and least good would be the uninformed, misinformed, or hostile.

>9) a tendency to attribute anything bad about scientology to someone >being against scientology (i.e. non-scientologist reads an article in >people magazine about scientology. scientologist claims that the >press is against scientology, therefore none of it should be believed)

Too complex to answer well. If there is something legitimately or legally "bad" about Scientology, then inform the proper people in the organization (ethics officers). Scientology is very heavy on self- correction. If its not legitimate, then investigate the motives of the attacker.

>10) a tendency to attack those who speak negatively about scientology >(i.e. non-scientologist quotes flynn on something. scientologist >goes into a tirade about how flynn is just out to make money on >ex-scientologists)

Same as 9). Where is this attack coming from and why (the real reason)? And what is a Scientologist doing going into a tirade with a non- scientologist. That is bad manners and setting a bad example and indicates that scientologist is not very mature, trained, educated, or counseled.

There don't seem to be very many perfect people on earth. Scientologists are earth people trying to get better, happier, more able, etc. etc. They are all at some stage of that gradient of imperfection. Some act badly and give a bad influence, just like anything else. Scientology tries to help resolve that too. When the avid critics of Scientology have demonstrated a better system of help to a larger number of people and have made as much inroad in social affairs as the Church affiliates, then their comments might have some merit. Until then, they too could improve if they genuinely wanted to, couldn't they?

I hope this helps and I apologize for the lack of direct quotes which state things better than I do.

Dick

---
The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank