From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: a real life story
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 02:30:19 GMT
Organization: Temple of At'L'An
On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 01:42:26 GMT, desertphile@RE-MOVEhotmail.com (Shy David) wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2003 05:39:34 -0800, MariaGarcia
> <MariaGarcia_member@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > Congrats! You've turned me into a believer. Well, almost. I
> > almost believe that the internet is crowded with people who
> > are so full of themselves that they can't smell their own b/s
> > any longer.
> Here's the problem: anecdotes of "success" are utterly worthless.
> People go on and on and on about how astrology is so astoundingly
> accurate; how John Edwards talked to their dear old departed pet
> goldfish last Tuesday; how the Ouiji Board last night knew everything
> about their love life; how homeopathy "cured my lung cancer (cough!
> cough!)," how Uri Geller bent a golf club with only the power of his
> mind "right before my eyes!," how wrist magnets cure pain, how uncanny
> their favorate palm reader is.... up to, including, and surpassing the
> ability to read the future in the entrails of sheep. It's all
> worthless bullshit.
> If the crime syndicate (i.e., narCONon) wishes to sway people who
> recognize bullshit when we see it, Scientology Inc. need only allow
> independant researchers to perform proper studies on narCONon, and
> show that the treatment isn't dangerous, show that the treatment is
> effective, and show that the treatment isn't turning victims into
> glaze-eyed zombies.
> WHY DOES NARCONON REFUSE TO ALLOW THIS?! (Go on: take a guess.)
It would not surprise me if Narconon was able to show in a scientifically valid way that their "treatment" is effective. Long as you don't consider "auditine" addictive, getting people off addictive drugs and on addictive social rewards should work.
I can think of two reasons they don't. First, scientologists can't understand the need for blind and double blind testing no matter how carefully you explain it. (Or perhaps at some level they do understand it and know the scn BS would never stand up to such tests.)
It is diagnostic of either the kind of people who get sucked into scientology or what scn does to their ability to think, but I have never seen a counter example. And for that matter, people who get out need years to decades before they understand that people can fool themselves and double blind testing is required to get around that tendency.
Second, it might be that Narconon works on only a small segment of the addict population--that fraction of people who can do a tribal kind of bonding with those deep in an LRH BS haze. Perhaps people very high on the gullibility scale. A good fraction of the rest of them figure out this is a cult and get out.
> And here's my second swatting point: if narCONon can demonstrate that
> it is safe, effective, and doesn't turn its "graduates" into willing
> slaves of organized crime (aka Scientology), I will happily and
> eagerly crow narCONon's praises everywhere and anywhere I can.
> I know a few dozen American Indians, from four different tribes, who
> sit on their tribal councils: all look for and wish for an effective
> defense against drug, tobacco, and alcohol abuse. Show me the data
> that demonstrates narCONon isn't as dangerous, ineffective, and
> brainwashing as all the current data demonstrates, and I'll be pleased
> as punch to encourage their tribal councils to consider narCONon.
> WHAT THE HELL IS NARCONON WAITING FOR?!
For hell to freeze over?
But it does occur to me that it should be possible to devise a treatment program for drugs using the understanding that cults and drugs are both acting on the same reward pathway. There is nothing wrong with getting social rewards from pleasant contact with other people.
AA certainly has social attention rewards built right into the ritual they use for meetings. And unlike scientology, it is not as expensive as a smack habit.