Scientology - Psychology - what's the difference?

[A Laughing Baby]

sure, but the same could be said of any "religion".

My point remains that most people really have no idea of the lack of or poor science behind much of the practice of psychiatry and psychology.

Wowbagger is correct to note it's much improved, at least in academic circles, but in it's public practice their foundations are still remarkably flimsy and affected by fashion. Witness the "recovered memories" debacle.

Yes, I definitely agree. The Satanic Panic of the 90s was an embarrassment to everyone. But that was the answer to the question in your thread title: "What's the difference?"

The difference is that psychology has more of a scientific basis than scientology. There's other things to be said too, but that's seriously it.

 

[icerat]

Yes, I definitely agree. The Satanic Panic of the 90s was an embarrassment to everyone. But that was the answer to the question in your thread title: "What's the difference?"

The difference is that psychology has more of a scientific basis than scientology. There's other things to be said too, but that's seriously it.

I probably should have quoted this in my reply, mea culpa -

Psychology, neuroscience, and psychiatry are science-based disciplines. They rely on the scientific method to try to understand how the brain/mind works and also to address problems that might arise affecting human behavior.

Of those I think only neuroscience accurately fits the description, but we can live in hope.

 

[ddt]

Wowbagger is correct to note it's much improved, at least in academic circles, but in it's public practice their foundations are still remarkably flimsy and affected by fashion. Witness the "recovered memories" debacle.

That one leaped to my mind too reading this thread - and having recently revisited the Dutroux story. But the main point is that "recovered memory" is discredited by now, and no-one makes claims anymore about satanic abuse networks. So psychology has moved on beyond those discredited ideas. Whereas Scientology - and for that matter, any religion - sticks to some sacred infallible truths which are unalterable.

 

[mikeyx]

So after watching the infamous Interview with Mr. David Miscavige* I start to wonder what difference there is between Scientology and Psychology.

From what I know the auditors are trying to figure out what bothers you and try to get over those things that in some way hinder you from being more successful and productive.

That, of course, is as true for Scientology as it is for Psychologists. So why do Psychologists and Scientology both claim that both practices are not comparable?

In as far?

What's the difference anyway?

*Source:
Part 1/9 Scientology leader David Miscavige on ABC Nightline
Part 2/9 Scientology leader David Miscavige on ABC Nightline
Part 3/9 Scientology leader David Miscavige on ABC Nightline
Part 4/9 Scientology leader David Miscavige on ABC Nightline
Part 5/9 Scientology leader David Miscavige on ABC Nightline
Part 6/9 Scientology leader David Miscavige on ABC Nightline
Part 7/9 Scientology leader David Miscavige on ABC Nightline
Part 8/9 Scientology leader David Miscavige on ABC Nightline
Part 9/9 Scientology leader David Miscavige on ABC Nightline

Both are ******** so your point?

 

[marplots]

Well for starters there's this:

<snipped to get to the good part>

The price of Psychology doesn't go up each time you complete a level.

Um, have you priced graduate school credits lately?

 

[icerat]

But the main point is that "recovered memory" is discredited by now, and no-one makes claims anymore about satanic abuse networks. So psychology has moved on beyond those discredited ideas.

Just because one fad of the day is replaced by another doesn't necessarily mean it's more science based. While in recent editions there's been attempts to give the process stronger scientific underpinnings, DSM IV is still essentially a document of consensus by committee.

Compare the "science" of psychology with that demanded by, say a Cochrane review of some pharmaceutical or supplement, and I suggest it's not too far fetched to consider therapeutic psychology to have a greater basis in culture and history than science.

Again though, unlike religion there is at least the acknowledgement of weaknesses and a push for improvement, as slow as it may be.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

From what I know the auditors are trying to figure out what bothers you and try to get over those things that in some way hinder you from being more successful and productive.

Yes, that's it.

 

[dudalb]

Psychology was not founded by a second rate Science Fiction writer .

 

[blutoski]

To be charitable: I suspect that some (but not all) of L. Ron Hubbard's original criticisms about psychology (and psychiatry) were legitimate. Psychology was a bit of a minefield of good and bad ideas, for a while.

Ironically, this early period is exactly when he was OK with psychiatry. He voluntarily attended therapy for what appears several years and thought it helped him through some sort of ennui he was experiencing after dropping out of the service.

Something I guess few skeptics are aware of is that LRH was pretty supportive of psychiatry in the early period of his life and even for several years after the establishment of his Scientology business (it was not originally promoted as a religion).

What triggered the hostility was that psychiatric treatments really started to work and his client list (and income) started plummeting. He was suddenly losing market share to psychopharmacology. That would have been in the 1960s, starting with benzodiazepines.

What can you do when your business model is threatened by a more competent one? Well, you could improve your product... or you could keep doing the only thing you know and start to apply FUD thick and fast. (This latter strategy should be familiar to skeptics: recall AMWAY telling customers flat out that Proctor & Gamble donated profits to Satan worshippers).

 

[jimtron]

Here are some things about Scientology that are not true of Psychiatry:

• All Scientology and Dianetics theories, discoveries, techniques, etc. were authored by one person: LRH. He made grandiose claims, many of which he deemed scientific, yet none of them have been independently verified.
• According to LRH and the COS, Scientology is both a religion and a technology (again, often called science by LRH).
• Scientology and Dianetics are proprietary--Freezoners are discouraged if not hounded and litigated.
• COS uses bait and switch techniques (personality and stress tests), and has secret teachings (Xenu) that absolutely wouldn't be revealed for years, and after thousands (tens, hundreds?) of dollars have been spent.

 

[ddt]

Something I guess few skeptics are aware of is that LRH was pretty supportive of psychiatry in the early period of his life and even for several years after the establishment of his Scientology business (it was not originally promoted as a religion).

What triggered the hostility was that psychiatric treatments really started to work and his client list (and income) started plummeting. He was suddenly losing market share to psychopharmacology. That would have been in the 1960s, starting with benzodiazepines.

with this early period, are you referring to Dianetics? Because he first promoted Dianetics as an alternative to psychiatry. From wiki:

Dianetics soon met with criticism. Morris Fishbein, the editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association and well-known at the time as a debunker of quack medicine, dismissed Hubbard's book.[41] An article in Newsweek stated that "the dianetics concept is unscientific and unworthy of discussion or review".[42] In January 1951, the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners instituted proceedings against the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation for teaching medicine without a license, which eventually led to that foundation's bankruptcy.[43][44][45]

I see a pretty powerful motive for his hatred of psychiatry right there.

His idea of founding a religion goes back much longer, in a remark to another SF writer, that the way to get rich is to start a religion.

 

[Oliver]

I guess most people didn't understand my question:

I'm asking in as much Psychoanalysis and Psychology are comparable to Scientology/Dianetics - and why Scientology is so opposed to those things nonetheless despite similarities of trying to analyze and "therapyze" individuals. And most importantly, what's the practical intention behind demonizing Psychology?

I'm pretty aware of the scientific view that Scientology is a pseudo-science, but that's not what this thread or my initial question was all about.

Hubbard himself claimed he spent a great deal of time in the Oak Knoll Naval Hospital's library, where he would have encountered the work of Freud and other psychoanalysts.

My guess is that once Hubbard earned a lot of bucks by selling "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health", and therefore most probably understood what a "cash cow" his concept of Dianetics is beyond just selling books, he may also have realized that psychology is not only in direct competition with his Dianetics - but maybe even Dianetics biggest enemy in so far that he had no medical reputation whatsoever and the Science community was/is a powerful player being able to ridicule his Dianetics up to a point of insignificance. [Which, btw, is pretty bad for recruitment, right?]

Which may be the real reasons why he and Scientology was/are so opposed to Psychology - and maybe also one of the reasons as to why Hubbard turned Dianetics into a Religion.

Or is there a better explanation, maybe some facts I don't know about Hubbards stance about the matter?

Also, how did he came up with the E-Meter? - And why [according to Wiki] aren't there studies about the device and it's scientific usefulness/scientific worthlessness?

 

[Oliver]

I see a pretty powerful motive for his hatred of psychiatry right there.

Meh ... annoyance and a huge disappointment - yes. But hatred? Nah, doesn't make much sense - especially after it all turned - uh -"religious".

See my guess in my last reply.

 

[jimtron]

I'm asking in as much Psychoanalysis and Psychology are comparable to Scientology/Dianetics - and why Scientology is so opposed to those things nonetheless despite similarities of trying to analyze and "therapyze" individuals. And most importantly, what's the practical intention behind demonizing Psychology?

I think some of the first serious critiques of Dianetics came from the psychiatric community--the Dianetics book was popular when first published, and it was seen as a self-help book having to do with psychology. I always assumed that's where his hatred and fear of psychiatry came from. Also, psychiatrists and psychotherapists are competition. Lastly, if you were involved with the COS and you went to a shrink they would probably point out how it's an ineffective cult--another reason to steer practitioners away.

eta: just realized I repeated some points that have already been made...

 

[ddt]

I'm asking in as much Psychoanalysis and Psychology are comparable to Scientology/Dianetics - and why Scientology is so opposed to those things nonetheless despite similarities of trying to analyze and "therapyze" individuals. And most importantly, what's the practical intention behind demonizing Psychology?

Didn't blutoski nail that one? They're a competitor.
- "Have mental health problems?"
- "Come to us, we can give counseling"
Every client for a psychiatrist or a psychotherapist is one less for Scientology.

Hubbard himself claimed he spent a great deal of time in the Oak Knoll Naval Hospital's library, where he would have encountered the work of Freud and other psychoanalysts.

My guess is that once Hubbard earned a lot of bucks by selling "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health", and therefore most probably understood what a "cash cow" his concept of Dianetics is beyond just selling books, he may also have realized that psychology is not only in direct competition with his Dianetics - but maybe even Dianetics biggest enemy in so far that he had no medical reputation whatsoever and the Science community was/is a powerful player being able to ridicule his Dianetics up to a point of insignificance.

Yes. Seems so.

Also, how did he came up with the E-Meter? - And why [according to Wiki] aren't there studies about the device and it's scientific usefulness/scientific worthlessness?

It's a crude lie detector. But it's scientifically utterly useless: it's rigged so it always gives a reading. You don't want to tell your client s/he's alright, because then s/he won't return for a next session.

Meh ... annoyance and a huge disappointment - yes. But hatred? Nah, doesn't make much sense - especially after it all turned - uh -"religious".

I agree, but merely being annoyed at being bankrupted - no way. I guess it's a combination of the two.

 

[godless dave]

Wowbagger is correct to note it's much improved, at least in academic circles, but in it's public practice their foundations are still remarkably flimsy and affected by fashion. Witness the "recovered memories" debacle.

You mean the "recovered memories" therapy that was nearly universally denounced by practicing psychologists and psychiatrists?

You might as well blame astronomy for astrology.

 

[blutoski]

My point remains that most people really have no idea of the lack of or poor science behind much of the practice of psychiatry and psychology.

I think we're responding to vague statements. Like the above.

Wowbagger is correct to note it's much improved, at least in academic circles, but in it's public practice their foundations are still remarkably flimsy and affected by fashion. Witness the "recovered memories" debacle.

I have trouble accepting that line of reasoning, though.

Every field has wacky outliers that look bad. The abundance of cold fusion and free energy crackpots do not invalidate nuclear physics or thermodynamics as science. Creationists like Behe who are active producers in their field (Behe is a biochemist) do not invalidate their respective fields. MDs like Deepak Chopra don't invalidate medicine.

 

[blutoski]

I guess most people didn't understand my question:

I'm asking in as much Psychoanalysis and Psychology are comparable to Scientology/Dianetics - and why Scientology is so opposed to those things nonetheless despite similarities of trying to analyze and "therapyze" individuals. And most importantly, what's the practical intention behind demonizing Psychology?

I'm pretty aware of the scientific view that Scientology is a pseudo-science, but that's not what this thread or my initial question was all about.

Hubbard himself claimed he spent a great deal of time in the Oak Knoll Naval Hospital's library, where he would have encountered the work of Freud and other psychoanalysts.

My guess is that once Hubbard earned a lot of bucks by selling "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health", and therefore most probably understood what a "cash cow" his concept of Dianetics is beyond just selling books, he may also have realized that psychology is not only in direct competition with his Dianetics - but maybe even Dianetics biggest enemy in so far that he had no medical reputation whatsoever and the Science community was/is a powerful player being able to ridicule his Dianetics up to a point of insignificance. [Which, btw, is pretty bad for recruitment, right?]

Which may be the real reasons why he and Scientology was/are so opposed to Psychology - and maybe also one of the reasons as to why Hubbard turned Dianetics into a Religion.

Or is there a better explanation, maybe some facts I don't know about Hubbards stance about the matter?

Also, how did he came up with the E-Meter? - And why [according to Wiki] aren't there studies about the device and it's scientific usefulness/scientific worthlessness?

OK. Now I understand your context a bit better. By 'comparable' I think most of us thought you meant 'has the same crappy underpinnings' - I think now you meant that they seem to share similar goals.

Yes, this is the point: psychiatry turned out to be a competent and superior competitor, and therefore a threat to LRH's income.

There is a second motivator, which is more personal. LRH appears to have been what's called a malignant narcissist. His lack of credentials and half-baked, inferior, product was bad at the start, and became especially evident when his critics were both more succesful and taken seriously. Consequently, this may have led to what's called a narcissitic injury. One fallout from that is that the narcissist can become unstable and extremely hostile to opponents.

My personal thought is that the COS' hostility was not very profitable, and that sustaining it beyond LRH's death can only be explained as something that didn't really have a marketing plan so much as pure inertia or possibly conservativism within the organization. Retroconning the COS' relationship to psychiatry would probably confuse the rank-and-file. Perhaps they thought if it ain't broke...

Meh ... annoyance and a huge disappointment - yes. But hatred? Nah, doesn't make much sense - especially after it all turned - uh -"religious".

I think the narcissistic injury is what you're fishing for here.


Also: I think the primary motive for obtaining religious status was legal. Taxes and also the ability to couch business fraud within religious claims to argue for exemption.

 

[ddt]

You mean the "recovered memories" therapy that was nearly universally denounced by practicing psychologists and psychiatrists?

Every field has wacky outliers that look bad. The abundance of cold fusion and free energy crackpots do not invalidate nuclear physics or thermodynamics as science. Creationists like Behe who are active producers in their field (Behe is a biochemist) do not invalidate their respective fields. MDs like Deepak Chopra don't invalidate medicine.

Behe's creationism doesn't make it to peer-reviewed journals. Cold fusion only the one paper by Pons and Fleischmann - and then the whole world wanted to replicate it and couldn't and that was it. "Recovered memory" made it definitely further than that - it was a respected theory within psychology and it's still labeled as "controversial" rather than "quack".

 

[godless dave]

If you prey on mentally ill people and rely on them for income and labor, then obviously you're going to oppose efforts to help them get better.