Talk:Dianetics/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Good Article

I've read the page once before I think shortly before reviewing it, this article seems to fit all the criteria nicely. Think about fixing this up to become an FA sometimes soon if you can, unless your still in that arbcom thing or whatever, but the article seems stable despite it. Homestarmy 01:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah, the arbcom thing is dead news. heh. Terryeo 01:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Brainscams

Hi, I posted this on the Scientology talk page. Perhaps it is more appropriate here. Here is something that may warrant addition (or at least help clarify certain points here).

In Beyerstein’s paper on Brainscams: Neuromythologies of the New Age. (1990p28) he states that

“The areas of science that enjoy the greatest prestige at any moment are the most tempting targets for appropriation by pseudoscientists. Capitalizing on dramatic progress in the neurosciences, the merchants of personal success were quick to commandeer neurological jargon to provide a patina of authority. Scientology's "engrams" and its notorious "e-meter" were pioneers in this trend.”

Beyerstein, B. L. (1990) Brainscams: Neuromythologies of the New Age. Intl. J. of Mental Health. Special issue on quackery 19(3):27-36.

Regards HeadleyDown 06:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Eeek ! I've lived in fear that the shrinks would understand just enough Dianetics to apply it, thanks for scaring me. LOL. Terryeo 00:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Terryeo. I didn't intend to scare editors. Actually, I'm a bit foggy about why you should be scared. And why you think its funny. Could you explain? HeadleyDown 04:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, according to "Source" (Hubbard), all psychiatrists are inherently evil people, so presumably Terryeo thinks they would apply it only in evil ways. ... it's sad, really. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Sure, I had heard that Hubbard considered himself to be perfectly fine without the help of empirically supported medications. Well, its a point of view, I suppose. I'll see if I can find the actual quote. HeadleyDown 08:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Gosh, now we have conflicting datums. All psychiatrists are inherently evil people and All men are basically good and trying to survive. Gosh. I am sure Hubbard said the second one, but I'm not sure he said that first one, exactly like that. I suspect he left the door open a crack, just in case, you know, in some non-lethal way, some disinfected psychiatrist might wish to stick his toe into the Church's door. Terryeo 17:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

True 'nuff. In fact one big name psychiatrist was almost a scientollogist. Ever heard of Thomas Szasz? So many psychotherapies/ mind models have been stolen from Hubbard, its ridiculous. Arthur Janov, Eric Berne, Timothy Leary, Carl Rogers (will provide my arguments as to why I beleive hubbard an uncited souce and/or underground success, for each of these instantiations apon request[BTW, with Berne it is not that both Hubbard/Berne talked about games while digging into John Von Neumann, [as might be expected], Its more fundamental than that]). Why it's enought to make a thoughtful scientologist wonder whether they can ever get a fair test of scientology claims.Thaddeus Slamp 03:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

General info: HeadleyDown, and about 14 sockpuppets blocked on similar article to this

This post is just for the record in case anyone here has had issues with the named editor or others editing similarly. The following editors are as of June 5 2006, blocked indefinitely under any name:

  • Finally, "Flavius vanillus (talk · contribs)" was also blocked, for breach of multiple policies (not a sock of HeadleyDown, but repeated major conduct and editorship issues)

It is not confirmed whether other editors are also in the same sockpuppet/meatpuppet group. They may be. It may also help to be alert in general, to new editors and repeat behavior. Reversion of heavy duty POV editing and forged cites added over many months (back to May 2005) has been needed in cleaning up that article.

Please see Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming for more, including summary of reasons and behaviors related to this.

Formal ban and block documentation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans.

FT2 (Talk) 13:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Psychotherapy ?

"Hubbard presented Dianetics as a revolutionary and scientifically developed alternative to conventional psychotherapy and psychiatry" Does this mean that Dianetics (is not|does not claim to be) a psychotherapy?

Sorta. As an exCoSer here, I can say Hubbard might have strategiesed wrong, in not calling Dianetics a form of psychotherapy, but not really. In 1950, when DMSMH was written, there were very few therapies, and to most people therapy meant psychoanalysis. @ the time hubbards approach and goal were so radically different that saying psychotherapy would have lead to unneccasary mis-understanding. Also, there was no schooling or training that was strictly required @ time of publication. People were meant to team up and do this themselves. Nowadays, there are approaches much more disssimilar to psychoanalysis than dianetics, and psychoanalysis and dianetics therapy have grown much more similar to eachother as years go on. Dianetics is not much practiced as book one auditing these days/ few psychoanalysts practice classical analysis. Both Hubbard / freud realised that the particular talk therapy was not the point, but rather the goal in question. They parted ways on psychoactive drugs, however (don't think Hubbard would ever condone future psych drugs), while freud felt sure drugs would eventually replace his whole similarly self-created self-created proffession. Also, hubbards goal was always a super-human state called clear. Never heard of anyone calling themselves a freudian or even neo-freudian/professing anything like so grandua a goalThaddeus Slamp 04:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


Apokrif 18:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to answer you directly without any citation except that you read what Dianetics presents itself to be, [[1]. It is communication with an individual about their thoughts. It addresses what a person thinks, and what a person has thought in the past. In addressing what a person thinks and has thought in the past, it is potentially an alternative to conventional psychotherapy and psychiatry. (that's my statement and not anyone else's statement, though the two may coincide).
If Hubbard claimed that Dianetics was an alternative to psychotherapy I can't see how it could be classified as a psychotherapy! -- ChrisO 18:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, all what I know it that WP says that Hubbard said it was an alternative to conventional psychotherapy. Apokrif 18:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
When Hubbard first introduced Dianetics he had not been battered by the various legal battles that ensued. With an innocent smile he introduced Dianetics as an alternative to convential psychotherapy. I don't believe he had any idea what a legal mindfield it is to try to help people. Terryeo 20:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, in the interests of accuracy, "with an innocent smile" Hubbard was introducing Dianetics as an alternative not only to conventional psychotherapy, but to conventional treatment for arthritis, leukemia, sinusitis, et cetera... I guess it is a legal minefield to try and help people, especially if you are taking sizable sums of money for helping, and even more especially if you're making big promises that your help is going to be 100% effective and you can't actually support those promises. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand :) While I meant "an innocent smile" in the sense of his having no idea of the legal battles which would enuse, you understood, "an innocent smile" to mean another implication. Oh well. Terryeo 03:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Heh. He sure changed his tune quickly, when he stated that enemies of his church (which obviously includes psychiatrists) "May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed." Extanto 19:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure was funny, ha. ha. ha. <curtesy smirk> He first presented his information to psychiatry. They ignored it and stated they would continue to ignore it. So he went public with it, publishing DMSMH. The references User:Extanto quotes was in place for a short while about 40 years ago. ha. ha. The Church found that policy didn't work and cancelled it. You'll find a fuller study of that situation at Fair Game. Terryeo 19:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "They ignored it and stated they would continue to ignore it." The real-world version: Psychiatry did not ignore Hubbard's Dianetics, but rather noted that Hubbard's claims were "not supported by empirical evidence of the sort required for the establishment of scientific generalizations" (a situation that continues to this day.) Rather than put a blanket ban on it, which one would expect if they were (as Hubbard alleged) trying to suppress it, the APA's resolution recommended that "the use of the techniques peculiar to Dianetics be limited to scientific investigations designed to test the validity of its claims."
  • "The Church found that policy [Fair Game] didn't work and cancelled it." The real-world version: The Church found that the practice of declaring people "fair game" caused "bad public relations" and cancelled the practice of declaring that status -- while specifying that this change "does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP". In several court cases long after that supposed cancellation, the Church brought in experts to argue that "fair game" was a "core practice" of Scientology and therefore constitutionally protected. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I like my version better, it is more direct and uses less words. Terryeo 05:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
True, but I'd rather have the version which tells the truth. Even if that's more complicated than your version, that's just because the truth is frequently more complicated than the convenient Party line. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
On a related topic: http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs6/154CLR120.html "courts have held that a statement by an individual or by a group to the effect that the group is not a religion is not a critical admission in litigation by that person or group seeking to establish that it is" --Apokrif 16:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Fantasitic what personal websites will present isn't it? Hand typed "replications", "archived" as if they were real documents, headings typed a little larger, full of dead links? That site suggests if anyone has any questions they should email unisetliqdn@yahoo.com. Of course anyone with a yahoo.com email address must be reliable, isn't it? Doesn't yahoo.com make all of its adherents pass reliability tests before granting an email address (sarcasm) ? Such a citation would be fine to discuss on talk pages, but certainly nothing from that personal website should reach the article's page. Terryeo 05:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am reprinting this 1ce, as I think I've an important contrib/ don't want it missed: As an exCoSer here, I can say Hubbard might have strategiesed wrong, in not calling Dianetics a form of psychotherapy, but not really. In 1950, when DMSMH was written, there were very few therapies, and to most people therapy meant psychoanalysis. @ the time hubbards approach and goal were so radically different that saying psychotherapy would have lead to unneccasary mis-understanding. Also, there was no schooling or training that was strictly required @ time of publication. People were meant to team up and do this themselves. Nowadays, there are approaches much more disssimilar to psychoanalysis than dianetics, and psychoanalysis and dianetics therapy have grown much more similar to eachother as years go on. Dianetics is not much practiced as book one auditing these days/ few psychoanalysts practice classical analysis. Both Hubbard / freud realised that the particular talk therapy was not the point, but rather the goal in question. They parted ways on psychoactive drugs, however (don't think Hubbard would ever condone future psych drugs, while freud felt sure drugs would eventually replace his whole similarly self-created self-created proffession.Thaddeus Slamp 04:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Crank magnet articles

I am looking for information from experienced WP editors on the problem of keeping good editors on Wiki. See the page here User:Dbuckner/Expert rebellion

This is no more than a list of people who have left Wikipedia, or thinking of leaving, or generally cheesed off, for the reason (1) what I will unpolitely call 'cranks', i.e. people engaged in a persistenta and determined campaign to portray their highly idiosyncratic (and dubious) personal opinion as well-established mainstream scientific or historical fact, or 'crank subculture' i.e. fairly sizeable subcultures which adhere strongly to various anti-scientific conspiracy theories (e.g. Free energy suppression) or anti-scientific political movements (e.g. Intelligent design) masquerading as "scholarship". (2) the problem of edit creep, i.e. the tendency of piecemeal editing to make articles worse over time, rather than better.

You make a good point, unless your going to get all ape-s**t mcarthy witch hunt on kranks. After all, whats the diffference, really, between a krank/ a person w/some tendancies torwards krankism. What I'm saying is: Valid point if not taken too far. After all; I resewmble that remark! Thaddeus Slamp 04:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are in this category, leave a link to your user page there. If you can, put something on your user page that indicates reason for discontent. I particularly like war stories, so let me have any of those (links please, not on the page).

There is a more general discussion of this issue on Lina Mishima's page. User:LinaMishima/Experts Problem Note I am not in agreement with her title as it is not in my view a problem about experts, but more of adherence to scholarly standards, ability to put polished and balanced articles together. But her idea is good.

I don’t know much about this subject except that it's a possible crank magnet. If you know of any other, let me know, or even better, cut and paste this message on those pages. I'm going round the obvious places like intelligent design, Goedel, Cantor and so forth, but there must be many such. Dbuckner 14:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Medical and science claims

Official church site The first two videos make pain cure claims. "Dianetics is a science of the mind", comparisons with the law of gravity. AndroidCat 16:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

makes sense to me, heh ! Terryeo 18:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

POV overarching descriptives

The article says Dianetics was "developed by science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard". Hubbard was much more than a sci-fi writer, even as just a writer, and he was much more than just a writer. Primarily identifying him as a sci-fi writer is inherently POV. What is the point at all except to not-so-subtly imply that Dianetics is more science fiction. It is really irrelevant (and wrong too as he did lots more than write sci-fi). Out of everything LRH did in his life up to that point; explorer, philosopher, naval officer, world traveler, mariner, writer and, yes, researcher; why do we pick just one aspect and out of that one aspect drill down even further? Why, if not for the sake of POV? Here is how Antaeus Feldspar worded it when reverting my most recent removal of the term: "the fact that it is relevant to a POV that you do not share is not sufficient justification for surpressing information". I think that I have made it abundantly clear on numerous occasions that I do not wish to suppress critical views of Scientology (or Dianetics). I do object to writing entire articles, or vital portions of them (like the first mention of the author of Dianetics), from a critical POV. Why do we need to describe him at all; that is what the bio article is for. Just leave it out then. Comments? --Justanother 02:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

At the time he published the first Dianetics articles and books, Hubbard was best known as a writer of science fiction, as can be verified by looking at contemporary reviews and discussions of Dianetics. While he held other jobs, there is no dispute (is there?) that writing science fiction was Hubbard's main professional identity, and remains a significant chapter in his biography. One could substitute "pulp fiction" writer, but really, Sci-Fi is where he made his name--he wasn't just a journeyman, he had a real reputation, far greater than any reputation he established as a mariner or naval officer. It seems entirely appropriate to mention his sci-fi career at the top of this description, just as it would be if he had been a famous inventor or a movie star. I don't see bias in mentioning the single most conspicuous fact about his identity at the time he published Dianetics when introducing Dianetics. BTfromLA 03:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually "writer" or "author" would be the correct term if we want to mention his profession or "claim to fame" prior to WWII. His output dropped off after 1940 as he devoted himself to the military and then to his theories. His long-time friend, John Campbell, was an early believer in Hubbard's theories and first published the material in Astounding Science Fiction but it was not presented as science fiction; it was presented as what it was, a brand-new "science of the mind".[2] Interestingly, the cover does not try to get any "mileage" out of Hubbard's name; a conscious decision I am sure to not link it to fiction. Here is an interesting site:

While John W Campbell's Astounding is best known for its fiction, Campbell himself liked to stress that it was a magazine of science fiction AND science fact. This page lists the major non-fiction contents of all issues of the magazine from July 1939 to September 1960, under two headings: Campbell's own editorials, and other factual articles arranged alphabetically by author.

If we feel a need to pigeon-hole Hubbard right off the bat then "author" or "writer" would serve best as a compromise. --Justanother 04:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
(48 publications, 1947-1950, mainly Science-Fiction, followed by Western and Fantasy.

Isn't Android Cat supposed to be 1 of the CoS supporters here? Don't they teach you OSA Shills Anything?! Your both wrong, and are dishonoring Hubbard! In 1950, Hubbard was QUITE OFTEN refered to as an engineeer. The earliest dictionary definition I've yet found defines dianetics as: "(derived from dia [through] and [nous] mind)A Science of the mind created by american writer and enginerr, L. Ron Hubbard" ( I beleive thats pretty near dead on balls accurate rendering of a large dictionaries definition, from about 1951.Thaddeus Slamp 03:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

AndroidCat 12:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC))

Thanks Cat. But you know, of course, that, for Hubbard, 48 stories in fours years (one/month) is nothing. What was his output at the peak of his pulp career in the 30's. do you know? I would imagine one or two per week if not more if he could find a market for them all (hence his many pen-names). --Justanother 14:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
(In comparison, 64 publications, 1937-1940, mainly Adventure and Westerns. His peak year was 1936 with 48. AndroidCat 02:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC))
We disagree on this one, Justanother. Hubbard's "claim to fame" was not as a writer on diverse topics (though he did write other sorts of fiction), but specifically as an author of stories and novellas in the science fiction pulps, especially Campbell's Astounding, where, as you say, he first published Dianetics material. Just as A.E Van Vogt (another Dianetics supporter) or Robert Heinlein would properly be billed as science fiction writers, so should Hubbard.

Not the same. Doesn't follow. For 2 reasons: Hubbard published ALOT of non-sci-fi (especially adventure)/2) 1 of his most famouse books is not SF. Fear (book) is clearly a thriller, w/no trace of SF.Thaddeus Slamp 03:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

 It is clearly the one thing for which he was best known in 1950, and it remains an important part of his career.  There's no shame in it. BTfromLA 04:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
OK. Though I would say his claim to fame was in Fantasy and Science Fiction or pulp fiction in general. I agree; absolutely no shame but inappropriate in his first mention in the article. I will give you an analogy (which will also serve to illustrate my oft-mentioned point that unsourced analogies have no place in a main article as they are usually presented to forward a line of reasoning and, as such, would be OR if unsourced). Suppose that a fellow, Bob Smith, trains as a mechanical engineer and while he is in school and afterward, to support himself as an inventor, he takes a job as a clown. He becomes quite well-known as a clown, perhaps even starring in his own TV show. Meanwhile he invents a new safety harness for children in a car, the Safomatic. Assume it is on the market today. So here in wikipedia we might see "The Safomatic is a patented child restraint system invented by the famous clown, Bob Smith." I don't think so. It would say "The Safomatic is a patented child restraint system invented by Bob Smith. Mr Smith was a mechanical engineer that, incidentally, achieved fame as the TV Clown, Smarmy." Same point. No shame in being a clown; degrades his contribution; it is POV. --Justanother 05:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Very well said Justanother.Thaddeus Slamp 03:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to extend it to "fantasy and science fiction," I wouldn't argue, though my impression (not having read a lot of it) is that Hubbard's writings of note cluster in the latter category. I don't agree with your analogy--you are suggesting, it seems, that Hubbard's fiction career was incidental, but I would argue that it was his major professional focus for many years. And, as you've said, Dianetics first appeared in the pages of a sci-fi pulp magazine (which, like the other pulps, did address scientific theories as well as pure fiction, as you say). It really does make sense to mention it up front. BTfromLA 06:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No, my analogy is not intended to suggest that his fiction career was incidental to his life; I agree it WAS his major professional focus just as Bob's was being a clown. My point is that it is incidental to his development of Dianetics, which he created as a non-famous philosopher and student of human behaviour, i.e. researcher (a "hat" many contemporaries will support); just as Bob's clown career is incidental to his invention of a safety harness which he created as a non-famous mechanical engineer.

Since Hubbards claims were so contravercial/since he tended to have deep argument w/contemporary academic procedures, the best label he could hope for is "social thinker" like Confucius.Thaddeus Slamp 03:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

To make prominent mention of the non-sequiter "famous" occupation while ignoring the less famous qualities which actually led to the development of the contribution is, IMO, a deliberate POV attempt to degrade the contribution; especially when it appears in the very first mention of Hubbard as the author of that contribution. Hubbard was a student of philosophy and human behaviour; that actually is the underpinning for his successful pulp career.

You have a point, but you are probably overstating it. Even the churche "Hubbard: the philosopher shows that Hubbard a) was not an academic philosopher, and b)(possibly more importantly) Hubbard had a love-hate relationship w,/philosophy/a strong generally anti-intellectual (or @ least scarringly seemingly anti-intellectual) side to his whole stance.Thaddeus Slamp 03:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

He is often credited as one of the first authors in sci-fi to move it away from wizz-bang technology and more toward human issues.

That must be credited to John W. Campbell; I strongly suspect. That was the new way Campbell wanted to do it/ Hubbard, as a general writer, was thought correctly to be 1 of the writers who would be capable of thewanted product.Thaddeus Slamp 03:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Dianetics did not come from a "science-fiction writer"; it came from a very intelligent, well-read, well-traveled, student of philosophy and the human condition. If you don't want to mention that in the first introduction of Hubbard then don't mention anything.

Your going to loose (by over-statement), I suspect, using your current strategy. I think Hubbard has valid claim to engineer/ fantasy (in the broader sense) author. Contemperary sources usually supported his engineer claim, and his writings show it was the manner of thought with which he was clearly most familliar/ seemingly his approach to the problems he attempted to solve.Thaddeus Slamp 03:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

--Justanother 14:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Not that I agree with what you're saying at all, but see Wikipedia:Verifiability. No reliable third party sources would agree with your POV (he being a researcher, etc.). None would disagree that is was a science fiction writer, though.

Well put.Thaddeus Slamp 03:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

-- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi (and thanks for the recent help with the page vandal). It would be OK if you agreed with what I was saying just a teensy bit (laff). Point is that, of course, yes, he was a writer. But he was also a student of the mind and of the human condition (his ability as a hypnotist is well-documented)

citations needed.Thaddeus Slamp 03:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

. The validity of Dianetics has been validated subjectively by millions of people. It is NOT science-fiction. It did not come from a "science-fiction writer". It came from an insight into the human mind and condition gleaned from a lifetime of questioning and observation.

You two have become bickering ideologists spouting off different party lines/@ this time I think you are both lowering the quality of Wikipedia!Thaddeus Slamp 03:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And yes, too, that cannot be sourced easily. But that does not change the fact that pigeon-holing him as a sci-fi writer in the first introduction of his name as the creator of Dianetics is POV and serves mainly to degrade the contribution, IMO. It is best left off and let his bio speak for itself rather that predisposing the reader to a POV. --Justanother 15:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hubbard first published Dianetics in a Science Fiction magazine. The original hubbub around Dianetics took place in the science fiction subculture, and several of the first Dianetics devotees--including Campbell and Van Vogt--were high-profile Science Fiction professionals.


 In 1950, Hubbard was primarily known as a science fiction author, and the overwhelming majority of contemporary publications that mention Hubbard (virtually all of them that I've seen) say as much, including those that discuss Dianetics.  There is, in other words, an important connection between Dianetics and Hubbard's roots in science fiction;  Dianetics emerged in that subculture and it addressed ideas that were being actively discussed in that subculture (such as General Semantics). To supress that connection in the opening for fear that it will taint the veracity of Dianetics would hardly be NPOV.



BTfromLA 16:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I bow to the consensus that would likely stand against my idea here. Bow. Thank you for considering my point. --Justanother 17:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


Thaddeus Slamp 05:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I erased my last few comments becouse they were angry mis-uses of Wikipedia. I really think you 2 are wasting wikipedia, and should be stopped. You're playing little games and bickering using ideology, in my opinion! I think existential dishonesty (see existentialism) should be prevented on Wikipedia! Really, tho, what I should say, is I think you were both purposefully mis-using this forum, especially @ the end!Thaddeus Slamp 03:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Facts Of Dianteics.

This page appears to give facts of Dianetics only to the uninformed. There are some words used here that are Dianetic termonology but not necesicarly used correctly. I seriously dobut that this article was written from a netural point of view and if so then they never bothered to actauilly read Dianetics. I find this article misleading as to the actual purpose and process of Dianetics and perhaps if you were intrested you would read it for yourself.

As for the E-Meter it dosent mesure the spiritual state of a person. That just sounds like religious hocus pocus to me. What it actually does is measure resistance of mental image pictures. Every thing that you have experienced you have recorded as a mental picture. You use these pictures all of the time. Each of these pictures has measurable mass. If you think that this isnt true the close your eyes and think of a picture. You saw that picture so it had to exist somewhere as mass and is measurable as a energy witch has a resistance to the flow of other energies. Pictures with physicial or emotional pain have more mass than those without. The E-Meter sends whats called a carrier wave through your body through one can and is received throught the other. The current is too small to detect but it is there. Once its back at the meter the meter mesures the signal compared to the one it sent and gives a read if resistance.

This is usefull in auditing because it helps the auditor find what to audit. You audit incidents with physical or emotinal pain because thats what is messing you up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.113.42.77 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

First of all, a reference is needed to verify this statement about the E-meter. What book was it published in? And second, all published Scientology books begin with a disclaimer noting that the E-meter "does nothing." See: E-meter#Controversy. --Modemac 12:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe the newer E-Meter Essentials has all that info. Of course, it would be presented here as "claims" not "facts". And "does nothing" is not the same as "measures nothing". --Justanother 12:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Review

I came across this review online. Is it usable in the article or as an EL? It's quite negative but it mentions things that aren't in this article. Totnesmartin 22:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sod it, I'll put it in meself if nobody's bothered. Totnesmartin 22:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

This sentence comes out of nowhere and looks like vandalism to me, though it wouldn't surprise me if it was true >.>

In Dianetics, the human mind is described as a collection of "mental image pictures," which contain the recorded memory of a past moment, including all sensory perceptions and feelings involved, including, but not limited to, the feelings associated with being shot in the chest by the alien warlord of Gamma Sector Chi. One type of mental image picture, created during a period of unconsciousness, involves the memory of a painful experience. Hubbard called this memory an engram, and defined it as "a complete recording of a moment of unconsciousness containing physical pain or painful emotion and all perceptions."

57.68.10.185 09:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Self Help Guide

Hello all.

Authoritative Guide to Self-Help Resources in Mental Health, Revised Edition (Clinician's Toolbox, The) by John C. Norcross, John W. Santrock, Linda F. Campbell, and Thomas P. Smith (Hardcover - Jun 6, 2003)

This book rates Hubbard's Dianetics, Clear body clear mind, and Scientology books as "Strongly not recommended" (Page 348). Not sure whether it is appropriate here or on the scientology article or both. It basically says that if a guide condemns normal medicine it should be avoided. New age books such as these and NLP tend to do so so they should be avoided according to source. Seflhelpsanity 07:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes this checks out. I think it will be relevant to the scientific evaluations section as that's where the writer's base their assessments. Docleaf 05:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

in the interest of fairness once again

I just thought it should be noted that DMSMH contained complete instructions for auditing dianetics therapy as practiced @ that time. That therapy was in many important ways quite (I am not being ornate, all those qualifiers were carefully thought out/estimated asthe right thing)different than current instructions. The entire 2nd part of the book was a handbook of dianetic procedure. If hubbard purposefully created a pseudoscience, he put ALOT of effort into it. Every book with dianetics in the title that hubbard wrote, (and all but Dianetics 55 do, I beleive) had different procedures, and taped lectures do show a jumpy evolution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaddeus Slamp (talk • contribs) 03:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Interestingly, though, the CoS and the Dianetics Foundation still treat DMSMH as being every bit as accurate and applicable to today as it was the day it was published. Nowhere on any of their texts and their sites and their promotional materials for selling DMSMH do they admit that Dianetic auditing procedures have changed since 1950. The Materials Guide Chart, which shows all the different books with Hubbard's evolving techniques of Dianetics over the years, treats all the books as equals, not acknowledging that any of the material is outdated or obsolete. wikipediatrix 03:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a contradiction. If you build a higher quality bridge above an already existing 1. The 1st bridge still gets you where you need to go.

Admit??!! They've not been asked. If it aint broke, don't fix it!

None are from a scientology point of view (there are a few exceptions). Goes back to the bridge analogy I just mentioned. Hubbards system is @ least mostly internally consistent, whether that is appearant to the outside world or not.

That defense having been made, I hate hard-sell/ can empathise. Thats what Hubbard orders hem to do, tho. Maby theres a reason, or maby not. It's not my problem!

Ever heard of SOP? A new SOP does not negate old SOP's, it just replaces them operationally. THe new state of the art is better, but the old state of the art is as good as it ever was! Thaddeus Slamp 05:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

*Removed your insertions from my text above* Please don't insert your own comments directly into my post, it makes it impossible to tell who said what. You ended up with my signature attached to one of your own comments, which I didn't appreciate! As for the content of your reply, I can't make heads or tails of whatever it is you're trying to say. wikipediatrix 13:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me?! What do you have trouble understanding? Being pissed @ my insertion is 1 thing. Pretending you've no idea what I was saying quite another. I am becoming convinced I am the victim of a ruse.Thaddeus Slamp 03:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

wikipediatrix, you are mistaken to think that all books are treated as equals. I wonder where you get this from? A look at the Materials Guide Chart you mention shows you that this is a chronological sequence of publications (seen the arrows on there?). Read in sequence these books give you the full picture on how Dianetics and how Scientology developed. The Dianetics Book does contain workable practices and it helps people all over the world, every day. It's simple, it works and it can be done off the book no matter where you are and no matter if there is a Dianetics group or Church of Scientology around or not. That is why the the book is supported and sold. Dianetics has been amended but not replaced by NED (New Era Dianetics) and ExDn (Expanded Dianetics) almost 30 years later based on experienced made and further discoveries. Today's Bridge is complete and the fastest route. That does not invalidate the first techniques which still work. Makoshack 16:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Broken link

Citation number 37 is returning a 404 error, anyone have a new link to the source? Trinen 20:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Consistency - Pre-clear or preclear?

Which is it? Wikidan829 19:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't look for consistency in Hubbard's writings because you won't find it. Over the years, the term has commonly been used as:
Preclear/preclear
Pre-clear/pre-clear
Pre-Clear
PC
pc
Speaking just for myself, I prefer to use "preclear (PC)" the first time in an article and then "PC" in each instance thereafter. wikipediatrix 19:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
haha ;) Well I'm just talking about in our wonderful WP articles, how Hubbard says it is trivial to me. We use both in the articles, and I think someone(I would do it if I knew which one) should go through them all and make them one way or the other. Wikidan829 19:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
As for "preclear", the non-hyphenated, non-capitalized way does seem to be the most common in Hubbard's own usage, which should matter since it's his own made-up term. However, most Scientology texts simply say "pc" more often than not. wikipediatrix 19:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I always prefered Preclear because of the book "Handbook for Preclears" states it as such, and it's the only time I know of that it made it into a book title. Trinen 05:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


Heading Dispute

This phrase keeps going back and forth between being added by several people (including me) and deleted by Wikipediatrix. I'm not sure if he thinks it's irrelevant, unsourced or what.

"Dianetics is the only the first level in a series of secret Scientology teachings; its higher level of teachings are kept secret from members who have not reached these levels. In the Church of Scientology vs. Fishman and Geertz case, former scientologist Steven Fishman introduced as evidence what appeared to be Hubbard's OT I through OT VIII documents, of which a small portion known as the Xenu story has received much media attention. Xenu, according to the documents, was an evil galactic overlord who oppressed free spirits with science fiction-like tactics in the Earth's distant past (at which time planet Earth was known as Teegeeack.) The Fishman affidavit became public domain as a court document, and contains confidential course materials sold at a high cost. The church subsequently dropped the case against Fishman and petitioned the court to seal the documents, without formally acknowledging their authenticity." wagsbags 20:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, new posts go at the bottom of the talk page, not the top. I've moved it down here where it belongs. Secondly, I'm not a he. Thirdly, taking an abrupt left turn into tangential matters that aren't about Dianetics don't belong in an article about Dianetics, let alone right off the bat in the article's intro! All the Xenu/Fishman stuff is amply covered in the appropriate articles already. wikipediatrix 20:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
My opinion: this doesn't belong here. This is well covered where appropriate. Raymond Hill 21:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that mentioning that Dianetics is part of series of teachings is relevant. However, you don't need to go so in depth with them -- just link to the appropriate articles. GSlicer (t • c) 22:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, oops. Second of all, oops again :S. Thirdly, I'll concede the portion in dispute goes into too much detail but maintain that the rest of the series of teaching should be mentioned with links where appropriate. How about something like "Dianetics is the only the first level in a series of Scientology teachings with higher levels of teachings being kept secret from those who have not reached these levels." And then maybe one more sentence with links to the OT article and the Fishman Affidavit article. wagsbags 01:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, but Dianetics in not "a first level in a series of Scientology teachings" and has never been! What is your reference for this non-scientological claim? COFS 04:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it could be more precisely stated that the state of "Clear", reached through Dianetics, is required before access to the upper-level materials. Raymond Hill 04:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
So the Purification Rundown and Grade 0 etc are "Dianetics"? Not that I know. COFS 05:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Did I say that? Raymond Hill 12:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Didn't see you saying that. I think she's talking about the position of Dianetics on the "Grade Chart", remember, "The Bridge" (not this dilettante far-off-reality film, but the actual Scientology way to salvation). It gives the steps, what is "first level", "second level" and so on. The fishy nonsense spread by MI5, pardon, waxbag, is not on this chart, not taught in Scientology and not believed either. Misou 02:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, something like this. "waxbag" confuses historical sequence with what is happening in real life. COFS 04:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see it as "fishy nonsense", I think wagsbags means well. Just politely pointing the error would have been enough. In any case, the fact that the state of "Clear" is required before moving to upper-level, that might be worth mentioning in a few words, but certainly not go in so much details. Raymond Hill 06:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
In principle, I agree, of course, but I can't blame Misou for going overboard with the invective because "just politely pointing out" things never ever works around here, especially when you're not part of the "Scientology is a global scam and it is my duty to expose it!!" clique. wikipediatrix 13:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


What "error"? http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/part02/chp06/img/grdchart.gif is the chart I've seen hanging up at scientology churches and it clearly shows OT levels so are you simply claiming the Fishman afidavit isn't true? wagsbags 12:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Dude. This has little or nothing to do with Dianetics. Why are you so insistent on shoehorning this controversy where it's not needed? wikipediatrix 13:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
His point is that an individual is required to reach "Clear" to have access to higher Scientology teachings. I believe it's worth mentioning — without going into details of course. The sentence "Dianetics is the secular predecessor of Hubbard's "applied religious philosophy," Scientology, and it is still employed and disseminated by the Church of Scientology." could be rewritten as, "Dianetics is the secular predecessor of Hubbard's "applied religious philosophy," Scientology, and it is still employed and disseminated by the Church of Scientology, as reaching the state of Clear (Scientology) is a requirement to access Scientology's upper levels." Raymond Hill 15:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that was his point, because you're not talking about Xenu, OT and Fishman and he is. wikipediatrix 15:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Make it my point then. Raymond Hill 22:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The article already notes in several places the connection between Dianetics and Scientology. I don't care about "Clear" being mentioned, I care about wagsbags going off on a long tangent about Xenu and the Fishman Affidavit in the intro. wikipediatrix 01:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In my defense I didn't write the text in question, nor was I the first or only to put it in the article. It appears I've done a poor job at explaining my position. I feel the text in question is important information, however it is (as you've pointed out) well covered in the appropriate articles (Fishman Affidavit, Operating Thetan, Scientology). My remaining qualm is that there doesn't seem to be a place (that I can find) that really explains the progression of training (which is why I wanted a link to the Operating Thetan article). Upon closer inspection of the chart this may not be easy to do. Basically I felt that a part of a series should at least have links to all other parts of the series but it seems this may not be possible. wagsbags 03:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)