is "groupthink" a definition of how Scientology works internally?
cultxpt
I'm always amazed at how Scientology seems to look for short-term
gain without considering long-term consequences. For instance, at
pickets in Clearwater, the crazy behavior of the OT Committee members
was designed to harass us into stopping our picket(s). But the long-
term consequence is that their nasty behavior will forever be
memorialized in videos on the internet. So they sacrificed long-term
embarassment for short-term results.
So it seems to me that what happens is somebody says "let's do
this! That'll really take care of things!" And everybody else goes
"yeah! That'll take care of things!" without listening to contrary
opinion or considering long-term consequences.
Loveandmanymany...@googlemail.com
> h
The worst groupthink that you can find is in this newsgroup.
Read this study:
http://www.scientologytoday.org/experts/eng/oosthuizer01.pdf
vacation...@gmail.com
wrote:
The anti-religious extremists automatically go into agreement with
each other because they erroneously believe themselves to be in "High
School" and no one wants to be unpopular.
anothers...@hotmail.com
From my observations, what you say here is one of the mechanisms by
which Organized Scientology controls its "adherents." From your own
experience -- If you disagree with a scientology "policy" or with the
way the org treats you or someone about whom you care, do you voice
that disagreement and when you do, what happens to you?
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
You are onto one of the great Scientironies.
Hubbard had his own definition for the noun "group think:"
[Quote]
GROUP THINK, the common denominator of the group is the reactive bank.
Thetans without banks have different responses. They only have their
banks in common. They agree then only on bank principles. Person to
person the bank is identical. So constructive ideas are individual and
seldom get broad agreement in a human group. (HCO PL 7 Feb 65)
[End Quote]
Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary
L. Ron Hubbard
HCO PL 7 Feb 65 is the most important policy letter in Scientology,
"Keeping Scientology Working," so it can be seen just how important
Hubbard's concept of "group think" is.
The irony, of course, is that the cult under no circumstances will
permit different responses among Scientologists, but compels group
agreement, which, pursuant to their own "tech" and scripture, cannot
but be on reactive principles.
Where this "group think" meme is crucial, and also where it can be
profitably analyzed, is in the "Suppressive Person" doctrine and its
execution against the group's targets, or the targets David Miscavige
gets the group to think are targets.
This would theologically make sense because all the people the
Scientologists target are God's children.
What wogs have in common, in the realm of thought or spirit, is not
something that should be erased, as Hubbard and his cult and now
Miscavige insist. It is their relationship with God that they all have
in common, and of course the attempted erasure of that reality is the
work of mad men, and done willfully, the work of sociopaths.
This excerpt from one of Hubbard's ESTO Series lectures also shows how
he meant the term "group think." It's a bit long, because I wanted to
include what Hubbard says here about his father leading up to his
pronouncements about "group think." It was a glimpse into Hubbard's
case I hadn't noted before, and a couple of mentions of Hubbard's
priceless governing policy of finance, "make more money."
[Quote]
Now, the answer kiddies is make more money. I by the way had a, let me
tell you a little anecdote. I had a bad experience with this one time.
I told the wrong man, I told my father this one time, I got tired of
all of his talking about me and money and so forth, he knew nothing
about money and he knew nothing about me, been a naval officer all of
his life. I was often making a month what he made in a year. I don't
know, the unreality of people is gorgeous. And he told me that once
too often and I was just out of hospital, it was at the end of the
war, and my temper was rather short. And I turned on him and I said,
"Look," I said, "Don't go telling me this anymore, I've listened to it
most of my life and it's not true," I said, "Look at yourself. You've
been making money all of your life, you haven't got anything to show
for it, you spend your money like a drunken sailor. Now, why don't you
make more money?" So he did. He got ahold of my yacht and sold it. And
having done that, he sold my ranch, well anyway, he made more money.
So it doesn't always work that the message goes through straight, but
it is the answer, it is the answer. If you have hatted according to
policy and not hatted off a lot of squirrel, offbeat actions; if you
have made sure that you don't have using policy to stop; they can do
that by the way by always applying the wrong policy letter. All you've
got to do is take the policy letter that applies to A and instead of
following that, find another one that really doesn't really apply
to A but find something in it that can be construed as to apply to
this and they say, "Well, you see we can't do that." Policy was
designed to tell people things they could do and when it tells them
not to do something, it's trying to put edges on the channel so they
won't go off of it. But what channel? The channel of doing something
right. When you say this is a high crime PL it means we've had enough
of it, it's been too prevalent, this why is big enough and prevalent
enough and has been in the past to become a policy why, so don't. But
that doesn't stop anybody from going down the main channel. Now, if a
fellow doesn't know the policy that gives him the main channel and
only knows the policy that tells him to stop, then you will get people
using policy to stop. Do you follow?
There is always policy that tells them how to go on the channel. If
they only specialize in stop, that's terrible. Well, there's one thing
that you must know that any group of thetans can get best agreement on
a stop, they will most readily agree on a stop, that's any group of
thetans. It's one of the reasons democracies don't work. That's what
you know as group think. That's a very funny one and that's how they
all get sort of frozen. If you're not able to put in the public lines
and if you can't get a student into and out of an org, you know then
that you have a group think and it's a stop think. They don't know the
ways to do things and they've only agreed on the ways to stop things.
[End Quote]
And from HCO PL 18 December 1968, "Gung-Ho Groups:"
[Quote]
When doing a survey to discover the targets of the area, you interview
the public individual.
YOU DO NOT interview Ministers of State, Government Officials,
Presidents or Leaders of groups or firms to discover the targets of
the area.
RULE: INTERVIEWING LEADERS AND PEOPLE IN HIGH POSITIONS = NO
TARGETS.
If you interview such people, you will hit "GROUP THINK" and what they
suggest as targets are rarely and not necessarily what the public
want.
Follow this rule strictly. It is naturally ok to inform officials of
what you are doing but do not get involved in "officialdom", only
social snobs endeavour to do this.
[End Quote]
Another use from HCO PL 9 April 1970, "Conference Hats:"
[Quote]
Why do Committees fail? Why do Parliaments pass such strange bills?
Why does one get unreal solutions out of conferences?
The facts are these as we have lately discovered.
When a person comes to a Conference:
A. He dumps his own hat.
B. He picks up a planning hat.
C. He expresses opinions not data.
D. The Group Think is based on collective opinion, not on actual data.
E. Results are unreal.
Example: You call in a plumber, an electrician and a concrete man. You
ask for their opinion. They decide on a building with a helicopter
port roof! But they don't schedule when or how they plumb, elect or
concrete! That's an example of what happens in conferences.
[End Quote]
I knew about "group think" and "bank agreement" and how Hubbard had
risen above the bank within my first few months in Scientology. It was
a way Scientologists looked down on wogs. No group think in
Scientology, much.
Š Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
anothers...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I was serious about this question, loveandmany... and also any other
currently practicing scientologists (not "freezoners" but the ones
still in "organized" or official scientology).
Why am I asking?
Well, there's a lot of information posted on the internet by ex-
scientologists about how dissent was handled when they were "in" (the
basic gist of which is that it is not tolerated) but I've so far been
unable to find anything posted on this from current, practicing
scientologists. This situation leaves one (well, leaves me) with the
feeling that "groupthink" is not only practiced in scientology but
reinforced by its own policies.
So I'm asking: From your OWN experience -- if you disagree with a
scientology policy or with something you have been asked to do by
scientology, or with the way you or someone about whom you care has
been treated by the org -- if you ever have a doubt about scientology
-- do you voice your disagreement or doubt to your fellow
scientologists? And if you do, how is this handled?
vacation...@gmail.com
Before you could understand the answers to your questions, you would
first have to understand Scientology ethics. Why not read the newly
expanded book (July 2007) The Introduction to Scientology Ethics by L.
Ron Hubbard and find out for yourself?
Anything a Scientologist could post here would only be a personal
interpretation of what L. Ron Hubbard has already written about it.
anothers...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you for responding, Vacation. I appreciate it.
I'm hoping for some responses from actual, current practioners of
official scientology.
It's hard for me to tell if you are a practicing scientologist based
on your answer, which has directed me to a book written by the founder
rather than giving examples from your own experiences with dissent
within scientology.
I've read so many experiences regarding dissent posted by ex-
scientologists and had no difficulty understanding those. These posts
also contained many policy quotes on scientology ethics.
Bottom line for me: it's the human contact -- the communication from
one living, breathing human being to another that I find most
informative and reliable.
What is written in a book on philosophy or policy is static and
theoretical (and I love to read) -- but the communication of actual
human experience where such policy and/or philosophy is applied is
where the "rubber meets the road." At least, for me.
FlyingMaidenO...@gmail.com
For a change, it is nice to see some civilized discussion on ars.
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/anti-religious-extremists/