How Many Scientologists
Donald Lindsay
The 20nov93 Newsweek (P.80) reports on a statistical study of
religion in the USA. As studies go, pretty big: they questioned
113,000 people.
They report that there are 45,000 Scientologists in the USA.
Does this sound right? I know that the Church doesn't release an
official figure, but there should be some people reading this who at
least know if the figure is 'way 'way off. Or maybe the Church will
announce a rebuttal? ...or sue :-)
--
Don D.C.Lindsay Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
Chris Schafmeister
>The 20nov93 Newsweek (P.80) reports on a statistical study of
>religion in the USA. As studies go, pretty big: they questioned
>113,000 people.
>They report that there are 45,000 Scientologists in the USA.
>Does this sound right? I know that the Church doesn't release an
>official figure, but there should be some people reading this who at
>least know if the figure is 'way 'way off. Or maybe the Church will
>announce a rebuttal? ...or sue :-)
Wow, is that all?
It hardly makes it worth posting here.
I guess it's 'cause even though they are a small group,
they're so much fun.
>--
>Don D.C.Lindsay Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
.Chris.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Christian E.A.F. Schafmeister Biophysics graduate student
University of California, San Francisco UUCP: ucbvax!ucsfcgl!schaf
"Biophysics . . . THE future." INTERNET: sc...@cgl.ucsf.edu
Phil Albert
Would posters to this group mind indicating their position? What with
the sarcasm, and double sarcasm, and lack of body language, it's hard to
tell whether someone is defending or attacking the Scios. Smilies are
supposed to make up for the lack of body language, no? I propose:
------------------ (LRH's recent EEG). :) (no offense to those on the
bridge, but you're trained to take it.)
Lenny Gray
: At my last count, there were 8 million. BTW, I am a declared suppressive.
I suppose that people who are currently receiving promotional material
from Scientology get counted by the Church -- and I sure get a lot of
that -- though I'd answer the survey with a "No I'm not one", even if I
_do_ testify to the fact that the theory, data, and philosophy isn't bogus.
BTW, the name of _my_ religion is "Californian".
Donald Lindsay
In article <2d61fv$8...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
In the USA?
Unless you're using an unusual definition, I find that number 'way
too high. There would have to be about as many orgs as there are
convenience stores, no? And while a survey might be wrong by (say)
10x, how did it blow it by 200x ?
Tell me more.
Richard Nistuk
>At my last count, there were 8 million. BTW, I am a declared suppressive.
This seems high. Digging deep into my, by now, [in]famous
"Crap from the cos" file we find:
"+--------------------+
| PLANETARY |
| CLEAR & OT |
| TALLY |
| CLEARS: 47,736 |
| PRE-OTs: 15,580 |
| NEW OT VIIIs 1,192 |
... |
+--------------------+"
_Freewinds Issue 10_(1993).
pg 21.
So, by the magic of a little back'o'the envelope
calculations we see that only .6% of the worlds sc'n'ists
have made it to clear (according to Phils' 8 million
figure). Not very impressive.
sc'nt'logy has been going on since about 1950. So this
gives a rate of about 1200 clears/year. Very slow.
Lets look at it from a global perspective. There exist on
the order of 6 billion people (around 5.5 I think) on the
earth. So .1% of the worlds population are sc'n'ists,
according to Phils' figure. Only 0.0008% of the worlds'
population is clear.
Could someone with access to back issues of _Freewinds_
post some more planetary clear tallies? It would be nice to
get a time series history going.
>Would posters to this group mind indicating their position?
Scientology is a moderately successful scam.
>... What with
>the sarcasm, and double sarcasm, and lack of body language, it's hard to
>tell whether someone is defending or attacking the Scios.
Strangely, I've never had this problem.
Rich.
--
Richard Nistuk | "This above all, to thine own self be true,
nis...@physics.ubc.ca| And it must follow, as night the day,
4th year physics | Thou canst not then be false to any man"-Polonius
Tony Austin
US and probably another 50,000 everywhere else. The largest
contingency being in Los Angeles.
Don't forget that the church makes 300 million a year according to a
previous poster so that works out to be $3,000 dollars per member?
Not all members purchase something each year and some pay a hell of a lot
more than $3,000.
I guess the key figure here is 300 million bucks. It takes a fair amount
of quid pro quo to hit that mark so I don't think that 100,000 members is
out of line.
Have you noticed that very few Scientologists like myself post here
anymore? Tough audience; but I like it :-)
Tony Austin.
Patrick Jost
>
>In article <2d61fv$8...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
> Phil Albert <pal...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>At my last count, there were 8 million.
>
>convenience stores, no? And while a survey might be wrong by (say)
>10x, how did it blow it by 200x ?
>
>Tell me more.
OK. When Prince Elron the linguistically inept was fleeing from the
nefarious Xenu through the Wall of Swaggart's Hellfire, he had a
very secret weapon with him. No, it wasn't the headset that would
let you listen to Larry King on the spacefaring DC-3.
It was a device called a Slurpatron. The first time Elron fired it
up in his incarnation as a science fiction writer living on the
planet Earth in the 20th century, it made him addicated to Kools
cigarettes and made him want to dress like a tryout for the
local production of HMS Pinafore.
The completion of the Slurpatron was Elron's real accomplishment. These
devices have been secreted in convenience stores throught the world,
starting with the 7-11 across the street from Elron's Romaine Street
address in Hollywood.
The Slurpatron produces Slurpatronium. Ingesting Slurpatronium makes
you an OT666 (the first and second, or second and third digits are the
IQ of BOTH David Miscavige and Heber Jentszch...talk about using
enhanced mental powers to leave your mark).
All that is needed to activate these powers is the Sigil of
Scientology. The Sigil is a multimedia experience currently in
preparation by a select group. It will be broadcast in the
very near future, clearing, or at least clearing out the planet.
The Sigil is the entertainment event of the millennium. It is a screen
treatment of _The Tempest_ developed by Elron to activate the
Slurpons-persons who have ingested Slurpatronium.
I probably shouldn't give this away, but hey-a question was asked. Sigil
will star Kylie Minogue as Miranda, Mel Gibson as Ferdinand, Michael,
Janet *and* LaToya Jackson as Ariel, Sean Connery as Prospero,
Robin Williams as Caliban, Klaus Maria von Brandauer as Gonzalo and
John Cleese as Alonzo.
Special music has been composed by Gyorgy Ligeti and Frank Zappa, and will
be performed by the London Symphony Orchestra with special appearances
by Kate Bush, Brian May, Mauro Pagani, Miroslav Vitous, Chick Corea
and Richard Pinhas.
So now you know...convenience stores *ARE* the Orgs. The hour of the
Slurpons is nigh...things will get wild when all of us get those
OT powers...
--
Patrick Jost / U.S. Department of the Treasury / jo...@itd.nrl.navy.mil
semi-tame computational linguist / fretless bassist / troublemaker
Jeff Jacobsen
: The 20nov93 Newsweek (P.80) reports on a statistical study of
Although the church claims 8 million members, it also claims less than
100,000 members in the International Association of Scientologists, which
is their "official " membership. See USA Today 8/2/91, Source iss. 78
p.23, and Impact iss. 33 p.33
-- cult...@indirect.com Jeff Jacobsen PO Box
3541 Scottsdale, AZ 85271 Here I stand - I can do no more.
Chris Schafmeister
>In the USA?
Hmmm, how about...
1) Phil is dead wrong.
2) Scientologists are embarrased and lie to survey takers.
3) Scientologists are don't talk to survey takers.
I find (3) hard to believe because they will talk to
anyone who will listen.
Richard Nistuk
>I would say that there are probably 50,000 Scientologists in the
>US and probably another 50,000 everywhere else. The largest
>contingency being in Los Angeles.
Well this jives with the 47736 clear figure from the
_Freewinds_ newsletter, in that it seems to make a bit more
sense. But, I assume you are simply guessing. Can you get
real figures? Remember, you promised only to post facts.
>Don't forget that the church makes 300 million a year according to a
>previous poster so that works out to be $3,000 dollars per member?
>Not all members purchase something each year and some pay a hell of a lot
>more than $3,000.
>I guess the key figure here is 300 million bucks. It takes a fair amount
>of quid pro quo to hit that mark so I don't think that 100,000 members is
>out of line.
Fair enough. But, if you could get the real answer it would
be better.
>Have you noticed that very few Scientologists like myself post here
>anymore? Tough audience; but I like it :-)
What's your point? That they can't stand the heat? That's
odd, I thought that the scn'ists were reclaiming this group.
Oh well.
Lenny Gray
: Although the church claims 8 million members, it also claims less than
: 100,000 members in the International Association of Scientologists, which
: is their "official " membership. See USA Today 8/2/91, Source iss. 78
: p.23, and Impact iss. 33 p.33
I don't think the characterization of the Int. Assoc. of Scientologists
as "official" membership is valid -- it is a subgroup which buys one a
discount on goods and services for a "mere" $300/yr or so. Being such a
"member" for the economic benefits just begin to make sense at the $3,000
per year per head level that Tony Austin calculated the 100,000 member
number from.
My own "theta" (uncalibrated though it may be) seems to "operate" well
enough, and gives me the feeling that the 100,000 number is probably low.
The 8 million number probably represents all the people on their mailing-
lists.
- Lenny -
Tony Austin
There is no way I can get an accurate figure. A census has never been
done. Also you have the problem of people who consider themselves no longer
a Scientologist but have never publically declared it.
The only figure I can mention in regards to "Bodies in the shop" is from
the middle late 80's. I believe that it was 15,000 people were going to
course on a daily basis. There were also 5,000 staff members world wide,
and the Los Angeles advance organization was making about 400,000 bucks a
week. Now they are making much much less.
I'm not holding any papers in my hand that agree with these figures. I was
told these numbers by a staff mnember at the time.
In regards to Scientologists reclaiming this group; I don't see it. I would
say that the posts range about 6 to 1 in disagreement.
On another subject: I think it would be really killer if either Richard Nistuk
or Chris Schafmeister; (Sorry if I mis-spelled it.) would do a review on
8-8008. I would like to hear what a physicist or a bio-physicist would
think of the book from a scientific viewpoint. I realize that time and
school could be a factor but even if a review was done chapter by chapter
would be an interesting read.
Tony Austin
Donald Lindsay
In article <schaf.7...@cgl.ucsf.edu>,
Chris Schafmeister <sc...@socrates.ucsf.edu> wrote:
>>And while a survey might be wrong by (say)
>>10x, how did it blow it by 200x ?
>Hmmm, how about...
>2) Scientologists are embarrased and lie to survey takers.
>3) Scientologists are don't talk to survey takers.
It's well-known that surveys will be a bit off. For example, imagine
someone brought up Baptist, but who hasn't been to a church in 20
years. If asked his religion, he's liable to say "Baptist". If asked
if he goes to church, he's likely to say "yes". Surveyors know this,
and occasionally manage to measure just how wrong their results are.
A factor of two is nothing much.
If this Baptist is dabbling in Scientology, is he likely to still say
"Baptist" ? Does this sound like it would account for a factor of 2,
or 10, or what?
Richard Nistuk
>Your're right, Richard. I should only post facts.
Actually, you explained the reasoning behind your guess
quite nicely. And it was quite clear that it was a
estimate. This is good, and I daresay more than we have
gotten from other sc'n'ists. You should be worried about (ah,
the word escapes me) that thing where you have to direct
people to the source... Ah well, finals, you know. My brain
isn't what it used to be.
[...]
>In regards to Scientologists reclaiming this group; I don't see it. I would
>say that the posts range about 6 to 1 in disagreement.
Volume does not necessarily show who's in control. If the
sc'n'ists were able to answer skeptics questions
effectively a 6 to 1 ratio wouldn't be the issue.
>On another subject: I think it would be really killer if either Richard Nistuk
>or Chris Schafmeister; (Sorry if I mis-spelled it.) would do a review on
>8-8008. I would like to hear what a physicist or a bio-physicist would
>think of the book from a scientific viewpoint. I realize that time and
>school could be a factor but even if a review was done chapter by chapter
>would be an interesting read.
Yes, this would be ...er... nice... But I'm about to be
turfed from my account as I'm (finally) graduating (sniff,
sniff, wo is me and all that) and I'm not sure if I will be
coming back to school next Jan :(. Also, my life is a bit
busy with finals and stuff at the moment.
Of course, if I, or Chris, did decide to take this project
my fear would be that Hubbards "research" or writing skills
did not improve since he had written _Dianetics_. My
initial attempt at reading _Dianetics_ was less than
successful. The deeper I got into it, the more I thought it
was a load of crap. I doubt that _8-8008_ would be any
better. Can you convince me that it would be worth my time?
I mean, there are so many books out there, I must be
extremely careful about which ones I read before I run out
of time.
Tony Austin
which you could keep or use for fire wood; whatever. I'll also send
you a copy of a Scientology dictionary to help you get through it.
I realize that you would be going into the book as a skeptic and
probably coming out the other end even more so but I would like to
hear a physicists critique since the book deals with energy and so on.
Tony
Chris Schafmeister
>Jeff Jacobsen (cult...@indirect.com) wrote:
>: Although the church claims 8 million members, it also claims less than
>: 100,000 members in the International Association of Scientologists, which
>: is their "official " membership. See USA Today 8/2/91, Source iss. 78
>: p.23, and Impact iss. 33 p.33
>I don't think the characterization of the Int. Assoc. of Scientologists
>as "official" membership is valid -- it is a subgroup which buys one a
>discount on goods and services for a "mere" $300/yr or so. Being such a
>"member" for the economic benefits just begin to make sense at the $3,000
>per year per head level that Tony Austin calculated the 100,000 member
>number from.
The survey wasn't about how many people does Scientology
claim to have as members.
They polled a large group of random people and probably
less than 0.02% of them said that they were Scientologists.
The survey is most likely stating that about 45,000 people in the US
would call themselves "Scientologists" when asked.
>My own "theta" (uncalibrated though it may be) seems to "operate" well
>enough, and gives me the feeling that the 100,000 number is probably low.
>The 8 million number probably represents all the people on their mailing-
>lists.
Coooool. Can your "theta" pick horses too?
>- Lenny -
Chris Schafmeister
Well, it can't be a factor of 200, that would mean that
the overwhelming majority of Scientologists are not willing
to admit it. They may be too embarrased, too self-conscious,
too wishy-washy, don't believe it is really worth committing too,
didn't understand the survey takers question, whatever.
If there are 8 million scientology dabblers out there
who are too uncommitted to admit it then it speaks
very poorly of scientology.
I can see it now:
Join Scientology!
It's possible that 8 million
spineless dilettantes might not be wrong.
Lenny Gray
: >My own "theta" (uncalibrated though it may be) seems to "operate" well
: >enough, and gives me the feeling that the 100,000 number is probably low.
: ...
: Coooool. Can your "theta" pick horses too?
Yes, but not very profitably. I prefer poker. Do you play?
Chris Schafmeister
>Chris Schafmeister (sc...@socrates.ucsf.edu) wrote:
If you can't pick horses profitably,
why do you believe that your "hunch" about 100,000 being
low for the number of scientologists in the US
is worth posting?
Can't stand cards.
Richard Nistuk
>lenn...@netcom.com (Lenny Gray) writes:
>>Chris Schafmeister (sc...@socrates.ucsf.edu) wrote:
>>: >My own "theta" (uncalibrated though it may be) seems to "operate" well
>>: >enough, and gives me the feeling that the 100,000 number is probably low.
>>: ...
>>: Coooool. Can your "theta" pick horses too?
>>Yes, but not very profitably. I prefer poker. Do you play?
[...]
>Can't stand cards.
Hmmm... My mommy never taught me how to play poker... Is it
easy to learn? Maybe, Lenny, next time you're up in
Vancouver, you could teach my buddies and I sometime?
Rich.
(P.S.: bring lots of money. Because the ...ah... food is
expensive up here!)
Richard Nistuk
>8-8008 is a much faster read. I would be willing to send you a copy
>which you could keep or use for fire wood; whatever. I'll also send
>you a copy of a Scientology dictionary to help you get through it.
That would be fantastic. A quick check of the UBC library
shows that niether is available. When I'm done I could
possibly donate them to the UBC Library in your name, Tony.
If you don't mind, of course.
>I realize that you would be going into the book as a skeptic and
>probably coming out the other end even more so but I would like to
>hear a physicists critique since the book deals with energy and so on.
You should also realise that I'm only, and will probably
remain, simply a physics student. However, I have many
friends in the dept. who would be willing to help me check
the books out. And, though I am a skeptic, I shall attempt
to read the books with as open a mind as I can (actualy, for
most skeptics, this goes without saying, but in my case I'm
sure a lot of you would like to hear it :) ).
My snail-mail address will be sent to you via e-mail, Tony.
>Tony
Tony Austin
3.00 P.M..
You can donate the books in my name.
Tony
Lenny Gray
: If you can't pick horses profitably,
: why do you believe that your "hunch" about 100,000 being
: low for the number of scientologists in the US
: is worth posting?
Mostly from the fact that in my random life-experiences, I've run
into more than I would have expected with a 45,000 survey number,
but understanding that I might "just be lucky", I'm willing to
believe that the number might be much less than the Scientologists
claim. So.... taking the geometric mean (uh 600K), ... then
discounting 75% (for cash), .... we get 150K. Yeah, that's the
ticket.
: Can't stand cards.
No, that's not what you're supposed to do with 'em.
- Lenny -
Donald Lindsay
In article <lenngray...@netcom.com>,
Lenny Gray <lenn...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Mostly from the fact that in my random life-experiences, I've run
>into more than I would have expected with a 45,000 survey number,
>but understanding that I might "just be lucky", I'm willing to
>believe that the number might be much less than the Scientologists
>claim. So.... taking the geometric mean (uh 600K), ... then
>discounting 75% (for cash), .... we get 150K. Yeah, that's the
>ticket.
Well, surveys are always at least a bit wrong. If you do a phone
survey during the day, you don't talk to any day workers. If you
visit houses, you miss the apartment-dwellers and the university
students. If you survey in NY NY you don't get any farmers. [Well,
maybe a pot farmer or two?] So, I never take a survey result as being
precise. And some surveyers have axes to grind, although a survey of
religions should be fairly neutral that way.
The law of large numbers (well, statistical calculations in general)
says that if you interview 113,000 people and 37,000 (or whatever)
say they are Catholic, then you have a very tight grip on how many
Catholics there. That is, when you announce numbers like, say,
"37.6%", you mean "37.5% to 37.7%", not "35% to 45%".
However, if you interview 113,000 people and 25 say that they are
Scientologists, then the resulting "45,000 Scientologists" is more
like "25,000 to 80,000 Scientologists". Or like that. I would like to
eventually see some details on their study. Hopefully, their book
is explicit about how much faith we should have in their results.