Talk:Dianetics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dianetics has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Dianetics has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Archives

2001 - December 28, 2005 December 29, 2005 - January 8, 2006 January 9, 2006 - January 20, 2006 January 19, 2006 - February 5, 2006 February 7, 2006 - February 19, 2006 February 22, 2006 - March 1, 2006 March 18, 2006 - March 19, 2006 (RFC: NPOV) March 2, 2006 - March 11, 2006 (RFC: Pseudoscience) March 7, 2006 - March 14, 2006 (Non-RFC) March 12, 2006 ("Defining the minority view") March 17, 2006 - March 23, 2006 March 27, 2006 - April 30, 2006

Contents 1 Good Article 2 Brainscams 3 General info: HeadleyDown, and about 14 sockpuppets blocked on similar article to this 4 Category:Psychotherapy ? 5 Crank magnet articles 6 Medical and science claims 7 POV overarching descriptives 8 The Facts Of Dianteics. 9 Review

[edit] Good Article

I've read the page once before I think shortly before reviewing it, this article seems to fit all the criteria nicely. Think about fixing this up to become an FA sometimes soon if you can, unless your still in that arbcom thing or whatever, but the article seems stable despite it. Homestarmy 01:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah, the arbcom thing is dead news. heh. Terryeo 01:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brainscams

Hi, I posted this on the Scientology talk page. Perhaps it is more appropriate here. Here is something that may warrant addition (or at least help clarify certain points here).

In Beyerstein’s paper on Brainscams: Neuromythologies of the New Age. (1990p28) he states that

“The areas of science that enjoy the greatest prestige at any moment are the most tempting targets for appropriation by pseudoscientists. Capitalizing on dramatic progress in the neurosciences, the merchants of personal success were quick to commandeer neurological jargon to provide a patina of authority. Scientology's "engrams" and its notorious "e-meter" were pioneers in this trend.”

Beyerstein, B. L. (1990) Brainscams: Neuromythologies of the New Age. Intl. J. of Mental Health. Special issue on quackery 19(3):27-36.

Regards HeadleyDown 06:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Eeek ! I've lived in fear that the shrinks would understand just enough Dianetics to apply it, thanks for scaring me. LOL. Terryeo 00:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Terryeo. I didn't intend to scare editors. Actually, I'm a bit foggy about why you should be scared. And why you think its funny. Could you explain? HeadleyDown 04:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to "Source" (Hubbard), all psychiatrists are inherently evil people, so presumably Terryeo thinks they would apply it only in evil ways. ... it's sad, really. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Sure, I had heard that Hubbard considered himself to be perfectly fine without the help of empirically supported medications. Well, its a point of view, I suppose. I'll see if I can find the actual quote. HeadleyDown 08:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, now we have conflicting datums. All psychiatrists are inherently evil people and All men are basically good and trying to survive. Gosh. I am sure Hubbard said the second one, but I'm not sure he said that first one, exactly like that. I suspect he left the door open a crack, just in case, you know, in some non-lethal way, some disinfected psychiatrist might wish to stick his toe into the Church's door. Terryeo 17:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General info: HeadleyDown, and about 14 sockpuppets blocked on similar article to this

This post is just for the record in case anyone here has had issues with the named editor or others editing similarly. The following editors are as of June 5 2006, blocked indefinitely under any name:

• HeadleyDown editing as "Camridge (talk • contribs)"
• HeadleyDown editing as "AliceDeGrey (talk • contribs)"
• HeadleyDown editing as "HansAntel (talk • contribs)"
• HeadleyDown editing as "Bookmain (talk • contribs)"
• HeadleyDown editing as "HeadleyDown (talk • contribs)".
• Also identified as sockpuppets and indefinitely blocked: "JPLogan (talk • contribs)", "DaveRight (talk • contribs)", and 4 or so "single-use" sockpuppets.

• Finally, "Flavius vanillus (talk • contribs)" was also blocked, for breach of multiple policies (not a sock of HeadleyDown, but repeated major conduct and editorship issues)

It is not confirmed whether other editors are also in the same sockpuppet/meatpuppet group. They may be. It may also help to be alert in general, to new editors and repeat behavior. Reversion of heavy duty POV editing and forged cites added over many months (back to May 2005) has been needed in cleaning up that article.

Please see Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming for more, including summary of reasons and behaviors related to this.

Formal ban and block documentation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans.

FT2 (Talk) 13:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Psychotherapy ?

"Hubbard presented Dianetics as a revolutionary and scientifically developed alternative to conventional psychotherapy and psychiatry" Does this mean that Dianetics (is not|does not claim to be) a psychotherapy? Apokrif 18:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to answer you directly without any citation except that you read what Dianetics presents itself to be, [[1]. It is communication with an individual about their thoughts. It addresses what a person thinks, and what a person has thought in the past. In addressing what a person thinks and has thought in the past, it is potentially an alternative to conventional psychotherapy and psychiatry. (that's my statement and not anyone else's statement, though the two may coincide).

If Hubbard claimed that Dianetics was an alternative to psychotherapy I can't see how it could be classified as a psychotherapy! -- ChrisO 18:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, all what I know it that WP says that Hubbard said it was an alternative to conventional psychotherapy. Apokrif 18:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

When Hubbard first introduced Dianetics he had not been battered by the various legal battles that ensued. With an innocent smile he introduced Dianetics as an alternative to convential psychotherapy. I don't believe he had any idea what a legal mindfield it is to try to help people. Terryeo 20:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in the interests of accuracy, "with an innocent smile" Hubbard was introducing Dianetics as an alternative not only to conventional psychotherapy, but to conventional treatment for arthritis, leukemia, sinusitis, et cetera... I guess it is a legal minefield to try and help people, especially if you are taking sizable sums of money for helping, and even more especially if you're making big promises that your help is going to be 100% effective and you can't actually support those promises. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand :) While I meant "an innocent smile" in the sense of his having no idea of the legal battles which would enuse, you understood, "an innocent smile" to mean another implication. Oh well. Terryeo 03:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh. He sure changed his tune quickly, when he stated that enemies of his church (which obviously includes psychiatrists) "May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed." Extanto 19:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure was funny, ha. ha. ha. <curtesy smirk> He first presented his information to psychiatry. They ignored it and stated they would continue to ignore it. So he went public with it, publishing DMSMH. The references User:Extanto quotes was in place for a short while about 40 years ago. ha. ha. The Church found that policy didn't work and cancelled it. You'll find a fuller study of that situation at Fair Game. Terryeo 19:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• "They ignored it and stated they would continue to ignore it." The real-world version: Psychiatry did not ignore Hubbard's Dianetics, but rather noted that Hubbard's claims were "not supported by empirical evidence of the sort required for the establishment of scientific generalizations" (a situation that continues to this day.) Rather than put a blanket ban on it, which one would expect if they were (as Hubbard alleged) trying to suppress it, the APA's resolution recommended that "the use of the techniques peculiar to Dianetics be limited to scientific investigations designed to test the validity of its claims."
• "The Church found that policy [Fair Game] didn't work and cancelled it." The real-world version: The Church found that the practice of declaring people "fair game" caused "bad public relations" and cancelled the practice of declaring that status -- while specifying that this change "does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP". In several court cases long after that supposed cancellation, the Church brought in experts to argue that "fair game" was a "core practice" of Scientology and therefore constitutionally protected. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I like my version better, it is more direct and uses less words. Terryeo 05:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

True, but I'd rather have the version which tells the truth. Even if that's more complicated than your version, that's just because the truth is frequently more complicated than the convenient Party line. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

On a related topic: http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs6/154CLR120.html "courts have held that a statement by an individual or by a group to the effect that the group is not a religion is not a critical admission in litigation by that person or group seeking to establish that it is" --Apokrif 16:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Fantasitic what personal websites will present isn't it? Hand typed "replications", "archived" as if they were real documents, headings typed a little larger, full of dead links? That site suggests if anyone has any questions they should email unisetliqdn@yahoo.com. Of course anyone with a yahoo.com email address must be reliable, isn't it? Doesn't yahoo.com make all of its adherents pass reliability tests before granting an email address (sarcasm) ? Such a citation would be fine to discuss on talk pages, but certainly nothing from that personal website should reach the article's page. Terryeo 05:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crank magnet articles

I am looking for information from experienced WP editors on the problem of keeping good editors on Wiki. See the page here User:Dbuckner/Expert rebellion

This is no more than a list of people who have left Wikipedia, or thinking of leaving, or generally cheesed off, for the reason (1) what I will unpolitely call 'cranks', i.e. people engaged in a persistenta and determined campaign to portray their highly idiosyncratic (and dubious) personal opinion as well-established mainstream scientific or historical fact, or 'crank subculture' i.e. fairly sizeable subcultures which adhere strongly to various anti-scientific conspiracy theories (e.g. Free energy suppression) or anti-scientific political movements (e.g. Intelligent design) masquerading as "scholarship". (2) the problem of edit creep, i.e. the tendency of piecemeal editing to make articles worse over time, rather than better.

If you are in this category, leave a link to your user page there. If you can, put something on your user page that indicates reason for discontent. I particularly like war stories, so let me have any of those (links please, not on the page).

There is a more general discussion of this issue on Lina Mishima's page. User:LinaMishima/Experts Problem Note I am not in agreement with her title as it is not in my view a problem about experts, but more of adherence to scholarly standards, ability to put polished and balanced articles together. But her idea is good.

I don’t know much about this subject except that it's a possible crank magnet. If you know of any other, let me know, or even better, cut and paste this message on those pages. I'm going round the obvious places like intelligent design, Goedel, Cantor and so forth, but there must be many such. Dbuckner 14:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medical and science claims

Official church site The first two videos make pain cure claims. "Dianetics is a science of the mind", comparisons with the law of gravity. AndroidCat 16:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

makes sense to me, heh ! Terryeo 18:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV overarching descriptives

The article says Dianetics was "developed by science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard". Hubbard was much more than a sci-fi writer, even as just a writer, and he was much more than just a writer. Primarily identifying him as a sci-fi writer is inherently POV. What is the point at all except to not-so-subtly imply that Dianetics is more science fiction. It is really irrelevant (and wrong too as he did lots more than write sci-fi). Out of everything LRH did in his life up to that point; explorer, philosopher, naval officer, world traveler, mariner, writer and, yes, researcher; why do we pick just one aspect and out of that one aspect drill down even further? Why, if not for the sake of POV? Here is how Antaeus Feldspar worded it when reverting my most recent removal of the term: "the fact that it is relevant to a POV that you do not share is not sufficient justification for surpressing information". I think that I have made it abundantly clear on numerous occasions that I do not wish to suppress critical views of Scientology (or Dianetics). I do object to writing entire articles, or vital portions of them (like the first mention of the author of Dianetics), from a critical POV. Why do we need to describe him at all; that is what the bio article is for. Just leave it out then. Comments? --Justanother 02:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

At the time he published the first Dianetics articles and books, Hubbard was best known as a writer of science fiction, as can be verified by looking at contemporary reviews and discussions of Dianetics. While he held other jobs, there is no dispute (is there?) that writing science fiction was Hubbard's main professional identity, and remains a significant chapter in his biography. One could substitute "pulp fiction" writer, but really, Sci-Fi is where he made his name--he wasn't just a journeyman, he had a real reputation, far greater than any reputation he established as a mariner or naval officer. It seems entirely appropriate to mention his sci-fi career at the top of this description, just as it would be if he had been a famous inventor or a movie star. I don't see bias in mentioning the single most conspicuous fact about his identity at the time he published Dianetics when introducing Dianetics. BTfromLA 03:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually "writer" or "author" would be the correct term if we want to mention his profession or "claim to fame" prior to WWII. His output dropped off after 1940 as he devoted himself to the military and then to his theories. His long-time friend, John Campbell, was an early believer in Hubbard's theories and first published the material in Astounding Science Fiction but it was not presented as science fiction; it was presented as what it was, a brand-new "science of the mind".[2] Interestingly, the cover does not try to get any "mileage" out of Hubbard's name; a conscious decision I am sure to not link it to fiction. Here is an interesting site:

While John W Campbell's Astounding is best known for its fiction, Campbell himself liked to stress that it was a magazine of science fiction AND science fact. This page lists the major non-fiction contents of all issues of the magazine from July 1939 to September 1960, under two headings: Campbell's own editorials, and other factual articles arranged alphabetically by author.

If we feel a need to pigeon-hole Hubbard right off the bat then "author" or "writer" would serve best as a compromise. --Justanother 04:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

(48 publications, 1947-1950, mainly Science-Fiction, followed by Western and Fantasy. AndroidCat 12:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC))

Thanks Cat. But you know, of course, that, for Hubbard, 48 stories in fours years (one/month) is nothing. What was his output at the peak of his pulp career in the 30's. do you know? I would imagine one or two per week if not more if he could find a market for them all (hence his many pen-names). --Justanother 14:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

(In comparison, 64 publications, 1937-1940, mainly Adventure and Westerns. His peak year was 1936 with 48. AndroidCat 02:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC))

We disagree on this one, Justanother. Hubbard's "claim to fame" was not as a writer on diverse topics (though he did write other sorts of fiction), but specifically as an author of stories and novellas in the science fiction pulps, especially Campbell's Astounding, where, as you say, he first published Dianetics material. Just as A.E Van Vogt (another Dianetics supporter) or Robert Heinlein would properly be billed as science fiction writers, so should Hubbard. It is clearly the one thing for which he was best known in 1950, and it remains an important part of his career. There's no shame in it. BTfromLA 04:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. Though I would say his claim to fame was in Fantasy and Science Fiction or pulp fiction in general. I agree; absolutely no shame but inappropriate in his first mention in the article. I will give you an analogy (which will also serve to illustrate my oft-mentioned point that unsourced analogies have no place in a main article as they are usually presented to forward a line of reasoning and, as such, would be OR if unsourced). Suppose that a fellow, Bob Smith, trains as a mechanical engineer and while he is in school and afterward, to support himself as an inventor, he takes a job as a clown. He becomes quite well-known as a clown, perhaps even starring in his own TV show. Meanwhile he invents a new safety harness for children in a car, the Safomatic. Assume it is on the market today. So here in wikipedia we might see "The Safomatic is a patented child restraint system invented by the famous clown, Bob Smith." I don't think so. It would say "The Safomatic is a patented child restraint system invented by Bob Smith. Mr Smith was a mechanical engineer that, incidentally, achieved fame as the TV Clown, Smarmy." Same point. No shame in being a clown; degrades his contribution; it is POV. --Justanother 05:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to extend it to "fantasy and science fiction," I wouldn't argue, though my impression (not having read a lot of it) is that Hubbard's writings of note cluster in the latter category. I don't agree with your analogy--you are suggesting, it seems, that Hubbard's fiction career was incidental, but I would argue that it was his major professional focus for many years. And, as you've said, Dianetics first appeared in the pages of a sci-fi pulp magazine (which, like the other pulps, did address scientific theories as well as pure fiction, as you say). It really does make sense to mention it up front. BTfromLA 06:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No, my analogy is not intended to suggest that his fiction career was incidental to his life; I agree it WAS his major professional focus just as Bob's was being a clown. My point is that it is incidental to his development of Dianetics, which he created as a non-famous philosopher and student of human behaviour, i.e. researcher (a "hat" many contemporaries will support); just as Bob's clown career is incidental to his invention of a safety harness which he created as a non-famous mechanical engineer. To make prominent mention of the non-sequiter "famous" occupation while ignoring the less famous qualities which actually led to the development of the contribution is, IMO, a deliberate POV attempt to degrade the contribution; especially when it appears in the very first mention of Hubbard as the author of that contribution. Hubbard was a student of philosophy and human behaviour; that actually is the underpinning for his successful pulp career. He is often credited as one of the first authors in sci-fi to move it away from wizz-bang technology and more toward human issues. Dianetics did not come from a "science-fiction writer"; it came from a very intelligent, well-read, well-traveled, student of philosophy and the human condition. If you don't want to mention that in the first introduction of Hubbard then don't mention anything. --Justanother 14:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Not that I agree with what you're saying at all, but see Wikipedia:Verifiability. No reliable third party sources would agree with your POV (he being a researcher, etc.). None would disagree that is was a science fiction writer, though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi (and thanks for the recent help with the page vandal). It would be OK if you agreed with what I was saying just a teensy bit (laff). Point is that, of course, yes, he was a writer. But he was also a student of the mind and of the human condition (his ability as a hypnotist is well-documented). The validity of Dianetics has been validated subjectively by millions of people. It is NOT science-fiction. It did not come from a "science-fiction writer". It came from an insight into the human mind and condition gleaned from a lifetime of questioning and observation. And yes, too, that cannot be sourced easily. But that does not change the fact that pigeon-holing him as a sci-fi writer in the first introduction of his name as the creator of Dianetics is POV and serves mainly to degrade the contribution, IMO. It is best left off and let his bio speak for itself rather that predisposing the reader to a POV. --Justanother 15:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hubbard first published Dianetics in a Science Fiction magazine. The original hubbub around Dianetics took place in the science fiction subculture, and several of the first Dianetics devotees--including Campbell and Van Vogt--were high-profile Science Fiction professionals. In 1950, Hubbard was primarily known as a science fiction author, and the overwhelming majority of contemporary publications that mention Hubbard (virtually all of them that I've seen) say as much, including those that discuss Dianetics. There is, in other words, an important connection between Dianetics and Hubbard's roots in science fiction; Dianetics emerged in that subculture and it addressed ideas that were being actively discussed in that subculture (such as General Semantics). To supress that connection in the opening for fear that it will taint the veracity of Dianetics would hardly be NPOV. BTfromLA 16:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I bow to the consensus that would likely stand against my idea here. Bow. Thank you for considering my point. --Justanother 17:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Facts Of Dianteics.

This page appears to give facts of Dianetics only to the uninformed. There are some words used here that are Dianetic termonology but not necesicarly used correctly. I seriously dobut that this article was written from a netural point of view and if so then they never bothered to actauilly read Dianetics. I find this article misleading as to the actual purpose and process of Dianetics and perhaps if you were intrested you would read it for yourself.

As for the E-Meter it dosent mesure the spiritual state of a person. That just sounds like religious hocus pocus to me. What it actually does is measure resistance of mental image pictures. Every thing that you have experienced you have recorded as a mental picture. You use these pictures all of the time. Each of these pictures has measurable mass. If you think that this isnt true the close your eyes and think of a picture. You saw that picture so it had to exist somewhere as mass and is measurable as a energy witch has a resistance to the flow of other energies. Pictures with physicial or emotional pain have more mass than those without. The E-Meter sends whats called a carrier wave through your body through one can and is received throught the other. The current is too small to detect but it is there. Once its back at the meter the meter mesures the signal compared to the one it sent and gives a read if resistance.

This is usefull in auditing because it helps the auditor find what to audit. You audit incidents with physical or emotinal pain because thats what is messing you up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.113.42.77 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

First of all, a reference is needed to verify this statement about the E-meter. What book was it published in? And second, all published Scientology books begin with a disclaimer noting that the E-meter "does nothing." See: E-meter#Controversy. --Modemac 12:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the newer E-Meter Essentials has all that info. Of course, it would be presented here as "claims" not "facts". And "does nothing" is not the same as "measures nothing". --Justanother 12:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I read the emeter controversy article and at the end it says that the e meter is used as a lie detector to invoke fear into its members. Im not in fear of anything about scientology or its members. Are you?

[edit] Review

I came across this review online. Is it usable in the article or as an EL? It's quite negative but it mentions things that aren't in this article. Totnesmartin 22:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sod it, I'll put it in meself if nobody's bothered. Totnesmartin 22:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)