Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
Joined: 3/28/2007
Msg: 62
Scientology or psychiatryPage 4 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)

does it matter what they think

No, but it matters when they commit federal crimes and interfere with the IRS. Read up on what happened in Florida and just why Scientology is the only "religion" to enjoy certain tax advantages.
Joined: 2/3/2008
Msg: 64
view profile
Scientology or psychiatry
Posted: 2/16/2008 12:23:05 PM
---Scientology has about as much in common as psychiatry as intelligent design has with evolution.--

Well, intelligent design was not coined by religionists but by physicist. Sorry to burst the bubble. It was a scientific observation, unfortunately the religionists got a hold on it.

--"BERLIN, Germany (Reuters) -- Germany has barred the makers of a movie about a plot to kill Adolf Hitler from filming at German military sites because its star Tom Cruise is a Scientologist, the Defense Ministry said on Monday."--

hahahahahahahahahahahah----what is this, the Tom Cruise crucification....Is this another Christ come back to life.

--She was great in the movie Dogville - -

A great actress, shes a peach. I had her once.

--You realize of course that Hubbard was a pathological liar from a very early age, an alcoholic drug addict manic depressive that dabbled in Satanism and didn't give a shit about anything other than money? And little girls.--

Did you meet this man, do you know that for sure. I never, I can't form that kind of opinion but I really like to know, Did you meet the man or are you reading something some Catholic Jesuit written. Oh Bye the Way I am not a scientologist. If there is a concern about them then someone is concerned, and that someone just has so much control over the media that its some sort of event.

--That says everything about Germany and their intolerance, and NOTHING about Tom Cruise or Scientology.--

I think Germany has got to play it safe, You know, Two WWs. Hey, what the hell give with you people. Give it up. Don't be shy. Germans are great people, I know a few, only. there too exact. Oh well you got to live with it. Not me. Peace out brother.

Well Hubbard had his thing, but the ancient Sumers had theres. Some of your should read up on them, they are the oldest civilized society on earth that was ever recorded. and in Cuneiform tablets of clay. And they state, that mankind was originated by transfer of DNA from an alien race to homo erectus (and we all know what an erection is) and created mankind homo sapient. And that Adam was the first perfect man. And the Sumers of 6000 yrs ago, knew about the planets of Pluto, Uranus, and Neptune, that we only discovered in the last 300 yrs. So why, are there cuneiform tablets ignored by the so-called educated onion heads of this planet. Samuel Noah Kramer wrote a fantastic book on the Sumer Race of 6000 yrs and more ago, and they had a king line that was 250,000 yrs old. Documented. In cuneiform tablets. And the Sumers knew that there was a all one Creating G-d. The Father. Do your own research, you will be stunned, and its authentic.
Joined: 3/28/2007
Msg: 65
Scientology or psychiatry
Posted: 2/16/2008 6:41:41 PM
Is it a full moon already?
Joined: 4/5/2007
Msg: 66
Scientology or psychiatry
Posted: 2/16/2008 9:31:13 PM

With scientologists focussing their anger of psychiatry and blaming it for everything from the holcaust to contemporary mass control of people, what is it that they dislike so much?

Scientologists are, by and large, morons. Isn't scientology a religion? Talk about codified mass control of people, right?
Joined: 3/28/2007
Msg: 67
Scientology or psychiatry
Posted: 2/17/2008 12:28:31 AM
Cult: an unpopular religion.
Religion: a popular cult
Joined: 2/8/2007
Msg: 68
Scientology or psychiatry
Posted: 2/17/2008 7:21:11 AM
Strangely they do have a point. Freud’s nephew was the initiator of what is known as Public Relations which in effect brainwashing or making you want things and accept values that you accept. Bush and patriotism worked well for a few years silencing people, and torture is worth practicing on so called nasty people too. Just assort of updated with hunt. Psychiatry has shaped the economics of America for over 75 years explaining to banks and industry how to make people consume products and want even more, in fact it is solely responsible for the consumer led world we live in. So it shapes on a subliminal, unconscious and conscious way why people have the opinions about this or that in general terms that is around goods. So Scientology has a strong point, but one should never forget that finger pointers often blame others in order to hide or camouflage their own practices. Scientology uses psychological and psychiatric adapted techniques itself, for its own benefit, including brainwashing techniques through stripping down an individual until they do not know or trust themselves and then in a sense rebuilding them into an unquestioning clone to the real truth. What is even more astounding the ones undergoing reprogramming pay for the mental flagellation. Leaving this organisation is apparently a nightmare and absconders, critics and independent journalists of this pseudo scientific gathering. One could say they have learned some persuasive tips not from the psychiatric fraternity but the mafia. So in reality they use both. Which is worse, well stopping consuming unnecessary stuff does not make you quake in your boots and feel threatened all the time expecting people to harass you, whereas in cults-ville sad to say the vindictive approach seems to be the preferred practice. You pays your money and makes your choice, but you are or could be in effect a victim to or of both.
Joined: 5/4/2006
Msg: 69
Scientology or psychiatry CAVEAT EMPTOR!
Posted: 2/17/2008 11:40:51 AM
I am not anti-psychiatry, the science has developed by leaps and bounds over the last couple of decades and continues to improve as research using various imaging technologies, biophsysics, pharmacology and related sciences improve. I believe that the tools and methods of research, training and treatment are far better than they were a generation ago (much less a century, three centuries, etc ago) and will continue to improve. Government funding agencies, private philanthropies, universities and individuals are correct to be vigilant regarding the pharmaceutical companies. Their work is valid, but they are required (they work for their shareholders) to do what is profitable-for a "pill company" that means creating medicine that will treat symptoms (on the bright side-with the fewest possible side effects, ease of use, etc) but they do not have a reason to seek "cures" and might only seek core causes for disease/syndromes/symptoms as it is a part of understanding how to deliver symptom relief. Only independently funded research labs-which get much less money than corporate labs-have much hope of seeking organic/bio-mechanical sources/causes of diseases of the mind/brain and developing medical responses aimed at cure or lasting correction. It seems to me (untrained and largely un-read) that the vast majority of mental illness is biological.

This should be considered separately from the benefits of "talking" and behavioral therapies which assist otherwise healthy persons identify areas that are interfering with their success (competence, social skills, contentedness) by understanding interactions, ineffective habits of thought or lack of living, coping or communicating skills.

I have had the very interesting experience of learning a little bit about Scientology many years ago-and rejecting it out of hand based on "gut reactions" to a couple of things that repelled me (the navy uniforms worn by "management", the giant poster of L. Ron Hubbard's face in the offices, and huge fees for "sessions", which were supposed given at a "church" and were completely unlicensed). Many years later I had the sad experience of witnessing a friend of a friends family "bust him out" of a scientology center, help him reverse years of "brain-washing" (for lack of a better term) and repel "management's" attempts to draw him back into the fold. It appears that they let him take sessions, classes, and so on over many, many years and "allowed" him to work off the fees by working in the scientology center doing menial work at near-minimum wage rates. I feel that this institution (self-identified as amoral) is not above taking advantage of the gullible, of folks that have lost their way.

L. Ron Hubbard's theories are interesting, the very weirdness of his biography is fascinating. I am glad that we have freedom of press/expression so that he could write these. And, I am very glad that physicians and therapists are licensed so the cautious are able to at least determine a minimum of training and standards.

No harm in reading the books, stopping by a 'church' (sorry for the use of quotes to any of you CoS faithful) and poking around-but make no mistake-this is a business-buyer beware.
Joined: 5/4/2006
Msg: 70
Scientology or psychiatry CAVEAT EMPTOR!
Posted: 2/17/2008 11:48:33 AM
Sorry - for my very recent post I figured out how how to turn italics on but my close-italics tag didn't work-didn't mean for the rest of the post to look that way! oops!
Joined: 10/16/2006
Msg: 80
Scientology or psychiatry
Posted: 4/13/2008 5:25:58 PM

Hubbard may well have been used by Crowley, but Hubbard used Parsons before stealing Parsons boat AND his woman. and the money that Hubbard exploited from his financial venture with Parsons was used to print his first book. He may have been used, but he sure as hell didnt complain.

This would be an inaccurate approach to describing the relationship. Crowley didn't "use" Hubbard. Crowley had no interest or regard for Hubbard at all and regarded him (and later Parsons) as "those American louts" after his dismissal of Parsons.

Hubbard lifted some of his ideas from Parsons who had been a devotee of occultism as learned through OTO techniques based on the Golden Dawn system of Western Esotericism.

Hubbard on the other hand "used" Parsons as a means to a girlfriend and a small fortune...he was a con artist and a B grade writer. That's closer to the mark.
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 83
Scientology or psychiatry
Posted: 6/28/2009 1:25:43 AM
Also, does anyone think that what scientologists say about psychiatry has any vaildity?

I don't think psychiatrists are necessarily evil people, in fact I know a few and find them genuinely nice people (maybe a little screwed-up in the head, but for the most part, reasonably sane -- i.e. just like the rest of us).

However, I don't think all psychiatrists are like that. I've heard of a few (mostly the mind control researchers working under secret contract with the CIA) that would make Dr. Mengele look like a boy scout.

Moreover, I find that Freud's psychoanalysis is fraught with erroneous assumptions and that it has never (to the best of my knowledge) proven itself to be effective. Like most (if not all) psychiatric therapies, it appears to be like the proven cure for a cold (Get plenty of rest, drink plenty of fluids, and in a week to ten days the rest & fluids will cure your cold.) I suppose this is why psychiatrists keep patients coming back for therapy for years & years. Their patients may eventually cure themselves, but in the meantime the psychiatrist has assured himself a pretty good income in the interim.

I don't doubt that they do a lot of good and I can't deny they have done a lot of harm. The ones I've known seem to suffer from the same delusion as their patients; they think they are getting better, so the therapy continues...
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 84
Scientology or psychiatry
Posted: 6/28/2009 9:58:36 AM

what is it that they dislike so much?

Anyone who wants control over others has a much easier time by having another group of people to blame for any real or imaginary problems.
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 85
view profile
Scientology or psychiatry
Posted: 6/28/2009 1:52:41 PM

With scientologists focussing their anger of psychiatry and blaming it for everything from the holcaust to contemporary mass control of people, what is it that they dislike so much?
AFAIK, they're both competing for claiming to offer solutions for the same range of problems. Psychiatry is just a competitor to scientology. Psychiatry is a recognised part of science. Scientology is not. Science is universally accepted by nearly everyone in the general public as being infallible. Science is heavily funded by governments. So psychiatry gains by being part of science, by being almost universally accepted, and by being heavily funded. Scientology has no such acceptance in mainstream science, so it has no such acceptance, and no such funding.

How would YOU feel if no-one listened to you, and no-one gave you any investment in your ideas, and someone else in the same field was given tons of money, and everyone thought they were right, and you didn't feel that they were. Wouldn't YOU feel p*ssed off?

If you read about dianetics, it doesn't seem that different from psychotherapies. In fact, a great many of the ideas that dianetics uses seem completely lifted from pschotherapy, which is of course a branch of psychiatry.
Since they are addressing the same range of issues, that's not really surprising. You find the same in lots of fields. Just look at IT. How often do we find that the same ideas are used countlessly by almost every company offering a certain type of IT product? Practically all of them.

Also, does anyone think that what scientologists say about psychiatry has any vaildity?
Psychiatry has a lot to offer. But it takes the assumption that the mental health professional knows more about the patient's mind than the patient does.

That works in other areas of medicine, because there are lots of objective physical tests, with objective physical results. Anyone can potentially diagnose a patient's physical ailments by checking their symptoms against the symptoms for each disease. Anyone can confirm a diagnosis by performing the relevant tests, or having them done by a lab. Anyone can look up the relevant treatment for a confirmed diagnosis. Anyone can apply the relevant treatment, once it has been confirmed. We even know how often the treatments work, and what side-effects there might be. Doctors merely amount to people with that knowledge, because they studied it, and were tested on it a lot.

But that doesn't work in psychiatry. The diseases are unseen. There are very few objective tests. Most are subjective. The diagnoses are very difficult to confirm, and it is easy for patients to be misdiagnosed. The treatments are equally questionable. CBT is one of the most effective treatments, and that has only a 30% success rate. That's about the same success rate as a lobotomy, and that's the most successful treatment we know.

Speaking as a patient, psychiatry is very difficult to deal with. The psychiatrist bases his diagnosis on what you tell him. But you aren't even sure what is and is not relevant. They often ask for your entire life history, and use that to make their diagnosis. But no-one remembers everything. How can the patient know what is relevant, and what isn't? Moreover, the patient only says things in terms of his perspective, and how he remembers things. So his information is subject to his perspective, which by the definition of mental illness, is wrong. The psychiatrist is basing his evidence on faulty data. It's like a doctor tying to tell if you have appendicitis, merely by asking you if it hurts, without ever touching the affected area, and without running objective lab tests. You could have appendicits. You could also have IBS, or a stomach ache. Rather harmful to remove your appendix, when all you had was a stomach ache.

The second problem is treatments. As I said, therapy doesn't have a great success rate. The highest success rate for curing issues like alcoholism and drug addiction, seems to be groups like Alcoholics Anonymous, and they are based on the 12 steps, which includes things like handing your problems over to G-d. It's not very scientific. There isn't really a solid reason we have for why they work. But they work far better than psychiatric methods.

Even when it comes to depression, psychiatrists don't know how long you'll be depressed. They don't know if a therapy will or won't work. It's like getting cancer, and the oncologist saying "well, we don't know if it will work, but let's stick pins in your bum, and turn you into a human pin cushion for a few days, because a few people who did it, got better". They might have just got so fed up of being a human pin cushion, that they found their own solutions. Therapies just aren't following the level of rigour that would be found with other areas of science, that might prove those therapies as reliable.

Drugs are the same. They ALL have huge numbers of side-effects, many of them very serious. They are just measured in terms of how often they occur. As long as only 1 in 1000 get kidney failure from those drugs, then the drugs work for the majority of patients, and they are handed out willy-nilly. If you want to see the effects of psychiatirc drugs on people with mental illness, just go to any drop-in centre where the majority of members are on those drugs, and are not currently undergoing therapy, which is most people with mental illness, you can see the results. I've seen morgues with more life. Imagine the most apathetic people in your life, and you've got a good idea of what the most active of them are like. Drugs are there to numb out the pain, and block their thoughts so much that they are not able to do most things, so that they cannot harm others. In the most successful of cases, drugs can be used to block out the problem. The problem is still there. But they can function to a degree. But that is the minority. Most just are doped up to the eyeballs. Even then, the rule for knowing whether or not they work, is to take a drug for about 2 months, and only if major side-effects are occuring, or if the drugs aren't working, then if you are really persistent, they'll just try you on another drug. It's a case of trial and error, with you being the guinea pig.

You usually get drugs, to stabilise you. Then you get therapy. But it's a long wait. About a year. Usually 10-12 sessions of 1 hour each. That's it. Then you have to push for more therapy, wait for another round, which takes another year. At 12 hours a year, it can take an awfully long time before someone can understand enough to see their way out of their problems. All that time, the mentally ill person is often unable to work, and needs caring for. That's a huge burden on the taxpayer. You pay £10,000-£30,000 a year for each patient while they are waiting for therapy. That's about $20,000-$60,000 a year, all because the patient has to wait to get treatment. Plus, the longer the patient is kept out of circulation, the more problems result when he/she tries to re-integrate within society, so the wait makes the treatment take even longer, all at the cost of the taxpayer.

Then when it comes to therapy, it suffers the same problems as Albert Bandura pointed out, that when you aren't the one to gain from it, you get unrealistic. Most therapies are often a good idea to begin with. But their success is evaluated in terms of the results that the psychiatrists see, not the patients. Imagine that you have cancer, and the test for if the treatment is how happy the oncologist is. He's happy if his patient doesn't complain during treatment, and doesn't come back complaining that the treatment doesn't work. That means it worked, because there are no complaints. Doesn't matter why. If the patient died, it's still a cure. As far as public psychiatric departments go, you are often seeing psychiatrists that are still working on rotation, so they get changed every 6 months. So you don't get to be there with the same one long enough to say that it didn't work to him. You cannot complain to the department. You're mentally ill, so you're in no position to be believed. They sure as heck don't want to say that their treatments failed, as that would cause the government to question why should they keep funding a department that isn't doing anything. So the departments want to claim that therapies worked. So they all too often don't want to open themselves up to considering real reasons why they failed, and by Karl Popper's rules for verification of a scientific theory, they cannot be proved right at all. They could be completely bogus, and no-one would know any different. In practice, they are usually founded on good ideas. But because no-one is interested in showing how they don't work, no-one is taking it seriously to figure out the exact details of how it can and cannot work. So you end up with therapies whose success really are entirely dependent on who is teaching them, not because the therapies work, but because the therapists make them work, and not because then therapists have an incentive to make them work, but purely because they want to spend countless hours working out how they might work, and conducting their OWN scientific experiments on themselves and their friends, at their own expense, with no way to have such personal data accepted in a scientific journal. Lots of work, with no way to gain fame or fortune from them, even to know that no-one else will even use it, all for the benefit of a few patients. Not much incentive.

Sure, therapies CAN work. But only when people start taking the blame game out of the equation, to free psychiatrists up to admit their failures, which are the majority, without being blamed for it, and finding their funding and salary have been cut in half, all for telling the truth.

Just to give you an idea of the state of things, back in the 1970s, some scientist wanted to see how effective mental health was. So he got some patients to all go to their doctors and claim to have some symptoms of mental illness, just to see what would happen. Despite that ALL were previously tested thoroughly for mental illness and found perfectly healthy, THEY ALL WERE ADMITTED! What is even more worrying, though, was that despite the psychiatrists being fooled, the patients weren't. The patients would reguarly come up to them, and tell them that they knew they were fine, and they weren't fooling anyone. The system really hasn't improved all that much in objective diagnosis. So it's probably the same. It's seriously worrying when the patients know who is well, and the doctors don't. Makes you wonder who are the one with the knowledge to be doctors, and who are the ones who really should be patients.

I even used to recommend CBT, as it was the only therapy I've ever had, that made some improvement. But I just got screwed by the report of my therapy, in the very way that was the cause of my anxiety, that the therapy was trying to cure, and convince me was not a problem. So the ONE therapy that "worked", turned out to do the very opposite. It gave me even more reason to have anxieties than before.

It's not a great system at the moment. Frankly, if you are mentally ill, you can get almost as many problems from being part of the system, as from your problems that made you seek it in the first place.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >