Scientology - Psychology - what's the difference?

[blutoski]

False dichotomy; I never said psychology is not scientific. I argued that its standards are still considerably lower than in "hard" sciences like physics.

Yeeeessss... and....?

Some psychology specialties more than others.
It's more that the subject matter is quite dynamic.

That's well after that craze had taken its toll on thousands of victims. I could name at least six proponents/practitioners from the Low Countries; if you PM Roma, you'd undoubtedly get another list of practitioners. Or look for more names in the threads on this board here, here and here. Oh, and there's of course Colin Ross, a member of this board. Your "half a dozen" is a gross understatement.

Could be. But it's still quibbling, and I think there are different claims being made. I'm refuting the claim that it was 'respected theory'. Now you're talking number of practitioners. If the number of free energy crackpots inflated tomorrow it still wouldn't be evidence the field was respected.

Also be mindful that recovered memory in principle is actually a respect theory. There are probably rare authentic cases. That's a 'respected theory' and it should be.

Comparitively, the fad of accepting every claim made by a patient as true has never been a respected theory. Your own citation actually supports this. Independent verification of 'recovered memories' before acceptance has always been the professional standard.

I acknowledged before, psychology moved on. But the practitioners still work on, only one recanted, while their practices got numerous people in jail or at least falsely accused. Pons & Fleischmann's paper on cold fusion never ruined anyone's life, at most their own pride.

Right, but now you're changing the topic to different levels of impact.
That's still doesn't support the claim that recovered memory practitioners who injected stories into their patients' heads were engaged in a 'respected theory'.

 

[blutoski]

nearly universally denounced? Here's guidelines from the CPA -

GUIDELINES FOR PSYCHOLOGISTS ADDRESSING RECOVERED MEMORIES, Canadian Psychology Association

Yes, I'm aware of that (member of CPA).

It supports my claim. The profession is aware that there is a risk of recovered memories being false, so practitioners have guidelines for dealing with them. Lest the practitioner believe they need to accept all claims as true.

That's dated 1996.

But this is just one example.

Yes. That and the 'homosexuality used to be in the DSM!" is Sometimes referred to as beating a dead horse. As Dr. Novella said about the psychiatry denialists: "Rosenhan has been milking this for two generations. Can't he just declare victory and move on?" (relevant connection - Rosenhan is the #1 go-to guy for Scientology's anti-psychiatry campaign)

I can't speak for today, but when I was educated a couple of decades ago, we got quite significant teaching about, for example, psychoanalysis, and I've no doubt there are still significant numbers of practitioners.

Care to point out the scientific support for it?

There is scientific evidence that Freudian/Jungian PA is superior to nontreatment (not surprising), but it's considered less effective than CBT today. As a consequence, its popularity has declined.

 

[TimCallahan]

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

Tell me, Oliver, do you go out of your way to initiate really annoying, provocative threads as a way to bait us, or do you just stumble on them unerringly?

 

[Wowbagger]

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.

Are you implying Scientologists are mentally ill?

I suspect most of them are not, or at least weren't before joining. Scientology has so many insidious fronts, they can nab just about any person who wasn't wary of them: Even some relatively bright folks.

 

[jimtron]

I don't know of anyone in the psychiatric drug rehab community that's claiming anything like 70% success rate in treating addicts; that's what Narconon (COS-related group) claims, yet for some reason doesn't seem to have evidence to back that up.

 

[godless dave]

Are you implying Scientologists are mentally ill?

Not all, just some.

 

[Craig4]

I'm one of Seligman's biggest fans - but afaik his work isn't yet widely influencing the commercial practice of psychology or psychiatry.

As a starting point, can you point me to the scientific underpinnings of psychoanalysis, one of the most popular forms of therapy?

Or how about the efficacy of CBT (which I believe is overall the most sound form of therapy) for something ike treatment of schizophrenia? It's promoted quite extensively based on some research, but more rigorous analysis indicates it doesn't work at all.

How about Maslow's heirarchy of needs? Still commonly taught in behavioural psychology, and especially in fields like marketing - but we've known for almost 40 years that it doesn't fit the research.

Sielgman's work has had a profound influence on the treatment of depression in children. I confused as to what you find unscientific about his work.

As for psychoanalysis, where are you getting that it's a common and form of therapy today?

 

[blutoski]

Are you implying Scientologists are mentally ill?

I suspect most of them are not, or at least weren't before joining. Scientology has so many insidious fronts, they can nab just about any person who wasn't wary of them: Even some relatively bright folks.

My impression is that they even go out of their way to screen the seriously mentally ill out of recruitment.

What they're looking for is people who have ordinary problems of life, buckets of cash, and are gullible.

The genuinely mentally ill are a liability and a risk.

 

[blutoski]

As for psychoanalysis, where are you getting that it's a common and form of therapy today?

I confess there are too many Freudian/Jungian PAs around, but they're certainly considered behind the times here in 2010 and their numbers are declining rapidly.

I sampled a roster of clinical psychologists / therapists in BC who were registered and less than 1% offered Freudian or Jungian psychoanalysis. A handful, but that could still be considered too many in this day and age.

 

[Wowbagger]

The genuinely mentally ill are a liability and a risk.

Yep. This would be another way scientology differs from psychology. The genuinely mentally ill can't actually get help from Scientology.

 

[icerat]

Sielgman's work has had a profound influence on the treatment of depression in children. I confused as to what you find unscientific about his work.

And I am confused to why you are claiming I find his work unscientific (and his name is Seligman btw)

Having said that, how many of his studies have randomized controls? How many are blinded? How many are double-blinded?

As for psychoanalysis, where are you getting that it's a common and form of therapy today?

IPA still has more than tens thousand members.

 

[Craig4]

It's just an example really; you could get into any number of journals and find scientific studies on many different aspects of psychology. According to IPA's website they have 12,000 members worldwide. That's not really a huge number compared to the total number of mental health practitioners worldwide.

 

[icerat]

It's just an example really; you could get into any number of journals and find scientific studies on many different aspects of psychology.

You can also get in to any number of journals and find scientific studies on many different aspects of education.

How much of it is being applied in the classroom?

According to IPA's website they have 12,000 members worldwide. That's not really a huge number compared to the total number of mental health practitioners worldwide.

As you state, it's just an example. How many psychoanalysts are there that are not members of the IPA? The Jungian IAAP has over 3000 members of their website alone.

How many "mental health practitioners" operate with an assumption that Maslow's hierarchy is useful?

How about Rorschach? Wikipedia reports 80% of psych grad programs teach it's use.

Could you imagine a pharmaceutical company using a Rorschach to determine the efficacy of a psychoactive treatment?

Put simply, how much psych research is comparable in standard to a randomized double-blind placebo study? and how much is replicated?

This has to be considered in context. Read almost any skeptic website and you'll see that any research into say some super-juice, or CAM, or psi phenomena ... whatever ... it would be rejected as substandard and it's findings questionable if it doesn't reach the "gold" standard.

Yet very little psychology research reaches this standard

 

[Oliver]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianetics#Basic_conceptsYes. Seems so.

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.

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

Well, it's obvious that they [at least] were in competition. But I'm trying to figure out how Dianetiks and Scientology as the end-result came about in the first place. So while it's obvious, I cannot claim to be sure about what drove Hubbard in the first place.

He himself said that he would make an religion if he intended to get rich - and for some curious reasons ... that's exactly what happened.

"You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion."

Now in that light the whole "Xenu the villain from outer space theme" wouldn't be a surprise either if he did make everything up about Scientology. He was an SciFi Author after all.

What I also don't understand is how he came up with the E-Meter.

Anyway: After Dianetiks turned into the Scientology religion for probably several reasons such as the competing psychological science, the trouble with the IRS and maybe even to make it all more appealing and harder to criticize, Scientology still is heavily opposed to Psychology.

Now that of course could be simply because Hubbard didn't like them and Scientology simply kept that stance after his death. Or there actually is a practical intention which is still important to Scientology today, although after being a "Religion", he/they seem to have managed to get rid of most of the competition. Wrong?

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

Psychology doesn't claim that it can give you superpowers. IIRC, the list of things a 'clear' supposedly can do with their brain would qualify them as having superpowers.

 

[Oliver]

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.

Mhmm, do they share the same goals? I highly doubt that in light of their infamous policies. You don't hear much about Psychologists doing that for the well-being of their patients.

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.

That does much more sense concerning the "Churches" policies. But it seems that Malignant Narcissism isn't accepted yet by the scientific community - it still is in theory from what I read about it on the Internet.
But in any case, we don't have any evidence for this claim - unless some mental health documents about Hubbard leaked and I missed it. So far, we all rely on what is hear-say and what he personally said. And one cannot even rely on his personal accounts if those guys are right:

http://www.google.de/search?q=well-...&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=18ec6523f084b5c7

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...

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.

Well, I wasn't fishing for a psychological disorder of Hubbard, I was simply trying to understand how one thing led to another in case of Dianetics and Scientology. If I take disorders into account, this certainly makes it much harder to make any sense how it all came about in his mind and therefore - in practice...

Concerning your suspicion, my guesses are the same about how it got a religion. But I'm fishing for evidence here - although I have no ***** Idea how you get the Religious status in the US without telling anyone about what you believe.

 

[Oliver]

Psychology doesn't claim that it can give you superpowers. IIRC, the list of things a 'clear' supposedly can do with their brain would qualify them as having superpowers.

I guess you're wrong: Scientology doesn't tell you about superpowers and a certain space villain when you join, do they?

And if they don't do it - is that fraud?

Or maybe even absolutely "unreligious" to begin with?

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

Oh, and psycologists don't claim that reading a psychology text above your education level without buying makes you die.

 

[Oliver]

To be fair, homosexuality was considered a disorder as recently as 40 years ago, although I don't think any psychiatrist claimed to have an effective cure.

Did any Scientologist claim that he "got rid of homosexuality" due to auditing yet?

 

[Oliver]

is this true, according to hubbard?.....really?

So it seems... but what's more awesome is that the USG portrays countries not granting them the religious status nonetheless as:

"discriminating against certain nuts from outer space religious minorities"
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71382.htm