I was able to contribute to a presentation about the dangers of Scientology which I’d like to share here.
There’s a bit of back-story about this which starts with studies on the subject of cognitive dissonance. This is a psychological term which is often used to describe what Scientologists and many other members of mass movements do when confronted with opposing information about their beliefs. Cognitive dissonance simply means “the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.” (Leon Festinger from A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance)
It’s very difficult to hold contradictory beliefs. People want consistency in how they understand the world. They want things to make sense. When someone has a closely cherished belief which is suddenly threatened by a new piece of information, that person has to figure out what to do with that new information. It takes mental effort to digest the new information. If the person does not want to change their existing beliefs, they have to either ignore, invalidate or change this new information so they have internal consistency. The stress or discomfort a person experiences when doing this is called cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive dissonance happens every day with each of us as we go through life. It’s not just something cult members experience. We all have to adjust our beliefs or re-think things when we get new information. However, some people refuse to accept new information no matter how factual or true it might be, simply because it would mean they’d have to change their old beliefs. This is illogical and unreasonable, but that’s never really stopped anyone in the past from doing all sorts of nasty things simply because they thought God wanted them to, or because they were so sure that they were right.
It’s not necessarily in our nature to always reject new information, though. This is why the subject is such an interesting study. Why is it that some people will be able to change their minds easily, while others are like rocks and won’t change no matter what you say or what they see? Trying to find the answer to that is why psychologists have been looking into this since the 1950s.
The fact that people can change their beliefs and can question authority is why Scientologists (and members of almost any other kinds of cult) are forbidden from ever looking at or reading information that is critical or contradictory to their beliefs, whether on the Internet or from any other sources. Yes, this is censorship and thought control and it happens every day in these groups.
Scientologists actually get into a great deal of trouble with their fellow members for daring to look at anything critical of Scientology, because by doing so it threatens their fragile and illogical belief systems. The real irony is that Scientologists claim to be free thinking, more intelligent and wiser than any one else in the world, and immune to thought control and hypnotism. Yet just try to show one of them something critical of Scientology or get them to talk to someone who can argue with them about Scientology’s practices and watch them run away in abject terror.
Andy Robinson, a student at Adler Graduate School, put together a formal work on cognitive dissonance and belief systems in December, 2013 (here). It’s no easy read, as it’s meant for fellow psychology students and professors, but if you are interested in knowing more about this, it’s a good place to start.
Using the information from this paper and related sources, a good friend of mine from the Anonymous camp put together a graphic presentation in multiple parts called “Waking Up from Scientology” on Prezi. She was a using a “robo-voice” which detracted from the quality of the presentation and its content. I thought that it would be helpful to get this presentation out to as many people as possible. I’ve always wanted to do voice-overs and this seemed like a good time to offer to try it out. This first part of the presentation covers not only what cognitive dissonance is and how it works but also how Scientologists specifically are affected by it. I found it to be fascinating.
And if I do say so myself, with the new voice overs I think the end result came out great. To watch it, click on the screen below, then click the play arrow in the bottom left corner and it will cycle through the presentation like a slide show.
Another great article, Chris.
Just this morning on Tony Ortega’s page, I read what Jon Atack had to say about the implants we were subjected to in Scientology. It’s so pleasing to see these types of articles. They are so helpful and in some cases validate me for already being aware and/or already having extracted myself from them.
One of the first things I did was to stop using Scientologese. This had the immediate effect of making me feel normal and in step with non-Scientologists. I don’t consider myself a Scientologist any longer anyway so this was a great start for me. It also helped me rid myself of that superior feeling that we/ex-Scientologist were mainly prone to.
Please keep these up, Chrs.
What about the feeling of superiority you are currently prone to? It seems like nothing has changed except the brand of superiority.
Seriously, what is the significance of cognitive dissonance? What’s the point?
“I thought I understood something, then found out something that contradicted my understanding, and now I am trying to sort it out.”
That’s all it is. Why dramatize it all over the internet?
This morning I woke up and found my cell phone was dead, and I thought I had plugged it in. I’m not going to produce a multimedia campaign about it.
There’s more to it than the over-simplicity you are creating here, Van. A lot more.
This has to do with breaking out of mental conditioning and being able to fully evaluate new information from an objective point of view rather than negating, invalidating or modifying facts simply because those facts don’t already align to one’s closely held beliefs. Belief is fine right up to the point that someone is altering clear-cut reality in order to sustain those beliefs, and thereby denying evidence right in front of their face. This is one reason why cognitive dissonance is studied: to find out why people would do these mental gymnastics and help them to stop so they can deal with reality. Truth is not always palatable, agreeable or pleasant but I’d take honest facts any day over wishful thinking.
@ Chris
I appreciate your desire to explore concepts of critical thinking. I notice i your immediate paragraph that you do not once mention Scientology. However, it seems that a preponderance of your articles are in fact about Scientology, and that your followers are Scientology “dissidents” of sorts, leading me to the conclusion that this in fact NOT primarily about the topic of Critical Thinking, but really an extremely detailed application of concepts of critical thinking to Scientology in particular, and especially to criticizing or denying the validity of Scientology concepts or ideals.
So now I believe that we are really in a bear trap because we are now devoting a major part of our time and effort to DENY something that we once spent a major part of our time and effort PROMOTING. That is a major application of cognitive dissonance. How do you determine how to resolve that?
Why does the COS discourage people from looking up information about Scientology on the internet? Perhaps because the internet, in it’s current state, dramatically DISTORTS the reality of what Scientology is and is not. It presents an ABSURDLY distorted view resulting in an enormous case of Cognitive Distortion.
Then guess what happens to that case? Who has to handle the CD or “enturbulation”? It’s the COS. Yes, the poor volunteers at the local orgs who have explain for the 17 billionth time that Scientology is NOT about Xenu, but rather about ARC and Self-Determinism, and why didn’t you see that information on the internet? Because the information on the internet is GROSSLY distorted, or false, or fantastically out of date.
Discovering and utilizing critical thinking is what enabled me to get out of the mind trap that is Scientology. The fact that you are promoting it as something good and desirable immediately puts us at opposite ends, because I do not believe that there is anything good or desirable in that subject. I believe that there are certain principles espoused by Hubbard which sound good and desirable on the surface but it is not a methodology that can deliver on those promises. There are plenty of other pseudo-sciences that do the exact same thing. Scientology is far from unique on that count. You may or may not have noticed, but as I have continued to write articles, I have broadened the subjects I’m talking about to not just Scientology but all cults and mass movements which include political and social groups, as well as religions.
I have found the internet, like any other medium of communication used by human beings, to have errors, misrepresentations and outrights lies on any subject you care to look up. You won’t find such errors or misrepresentations on the subject of Scientology on this blog. It is one of the few subjects I can profess with utter certainty to be an expert on. I spent over a quarter of a century working for the Church of Scientology from its lowest to its highest levels and I know exactly what it can and cannot do, what it cannot and cannot deliver and what it has degraded to in its current structure and format. I did not walk away from Scientology ignorant of its basics or its more advanced concepts and I could discuss the validity and invalidity of these concepts at length if I chose to do so. I don’t happen to want to waste my time, because the subject is so riddled with inconsistencies, double speak and outright lies that any case can be made using L. Ron Hubbard quotes for almost any point of view one wishes to take. I say that advisedly and not as some glib generality. You literally can use Hubbard to make any argument you want across numerous subjects.
I worked for the Church, I have worked closely with staff in the Office of Special Affairs and in the justice branches of the Church and I know exactly why people are prevented from looking at the Internet. Make no mistake – it is censorship pure and simple. It is thought control. It is not about keeping people from reading distorted versions of reality about Scientology. The Internet is the only place a Scientologist can find the actual truth of what OSA and Miscavige are actually doing with hard-earned funds those parishioners are handing over. It is the only place you are going to get a well-rounded and complete view of L. Ron Hubbard as a human being, not the god-like figure the Church would have you believe. The same goes for David Miscavige, who I also interacted with personally and had plenty of experience with in terms of how he runs things and how terrified Church staff are when he is around.
Knowing these things and speaking out the way I have, I expect that I will have naysayers and Church apologists. Frankly I’m surprised I haven’t had more come my way. One cannot take a few distortions and lies and then say that everything on the Internet is untrustworthy and a gross exaggeration of reality. That is its own brand of logical fallacy. But to deny Church members the right to think for themselves and to look for themselves is something all cults, and Scientology specifically, specialize in. I don’t believe that is fair or just or right and so I speak out against it. People should be allowed to make up their own minds based on ALL the data to hand, not fractionalized bits and pieces which the Church chooses to show at in-house events or in its promo. To think that the COS is at some kind of disadvantage because its “poor volunteers” have to explain about Xenu is itself a distortion because Xenu is a part of the “scriptures” and a very important part at that. When the COS can itself demonstrate some modicum of ARC and grant its own members real Self-Determinism, I’ll be happy to shut up about it. Until then, I will continue to speak out against its abuses.
I know that you strive for accuracy in information and I have learned a lot of valid and information from you. W/ regards to this blog, I’m mainly concerned about the distortion.
The OSA and David Miscavige are not part of the everyday Scientology experience. I feel that you’re taking your experience, which was understandably trying to you personally, and applying it incorrectly across the entire experience of Scientology.
Some bad things happened to you, but Scientology didn’t do them to you. It was people who did them, and in their minds they were not bad things. You interpret them as bad things because someone else put their interests – their survival notions – above yours. What’s worse is that you didn’t get any corroboration from your peers.
In short, you got fired from a job, or perhaps you became disillusioned and quit your job. And you’re not the only person it happened to. You thought one thing should happen, someone else thought something else should happen. I’ve been fired from jobs. It made me angry. I tried to dramatize my anger to attorneys and co-workers and friends. Guess what? Nobody cared. It was unimportant to them because, simply, it was unimportant.
What you’re reporting on here is not the entire subject and concept of Scientology. It’s about a tiny corner of the entire world of Scientology where it appears that a lot of people got their feelings hurt and have decided to apply their advanced abilities to whining and crying about it to each other, rather than doing something about it – and the thing is that you KNOW what needs to be done about it.
This is not critical thinking. This is generalization, vilification, and victim thinking. By delving into the concepts of Cognitive Distortion and Cognitive Dissonance you’re heading straight back into the Rabbit Hole that you just came out of – and I guess that is fine – it will lead you back to the beginning of the circle.
I’m sorry that you feel this way, Van. I can only conclude that you have not bothered to actually read or watch the articles and videos I have produced on the subject of Scientology and are basing your conclusions on some pre-conceived notion of what you think I am all about. You compound the error with labeling and argumentative accusations which are not only unproductive, but also indicate quite clearly that you have no interest in critical thinking or reason. Instead, you are commenting here to forward some agenda, likely issued by OSA as some effort to get a rise out of me or, at least, invalidate my efforts as a whistleblower against the Church. Regardless of your motives or true intentions, I have no interest in further comments from you on my blog.
Alles was Scientology-Mitglieder meinen zu haben….
wie freies Denken, freies Handeln, Wissen von dem Sinn und die Aufgabe unseres Lebens…
was kommt nach unserem Ableben….. wissen und haben haben Scientologen überhaupt nicht!
Sehr seltsam ……..
mit freundlichen Grüßen Helmut Knackert
Van, I wasn’t going to grace your comment and your own show of superiority towards me/my comment with a reply. However, I will.
The nitty-gritty is that just because a person expresses pleasure or shares does not necesarily stem from feelings of superiority. Perhaps, you’ve passed my stage of what you deem is my level of decompression. (I haven’t even mentioned all on this blog, not by any means. I don’t feel superior enough, yet.), you may feel irritated by what you perceive as naivety on my part. That’s okay.
Gushing does seem something that Scientologists are prone to. It’s even encouraged so that everyone can beam and feel like something, someone – to be admired, to be noticed. It irritates the hell out of me. Forbid that I indulge in it. But pleasure in identifying with someone else’s realisations, I don’t think is gushing.
I would be interested, Van, if you’ve got any other such opinions to offer. Everything is helpful – gives one food for thought.
Since I don’t know you personally, please forgive the generalization.
At one point in time, felt that held a superior point of view by accepting or following or evening gushing about the precepts of Scientology.
Now, feel that hold a superior point of view by accepting the precept that Scientology is false or is brainwashing or whatever it is that they feel negates the value of Scientology precepts.
Thus, these are really nothing more than two sides of the same cognitive dissonance. Yesterday, I liked yellow better than red. Today I like red better than yellow. When I liked yellow, people thought I was a bit overly-effusive about it. Now that I like red, I am no longer overly effusive.
Except that you are actually more effusive about it now than you were then. Do you really need to be affirmed in your belief that yellow is not a good color to like? Is it not enough to merely accept that both red and yellow are nice colors, or that you had a lot of nice yellow clothes that you still like, even though yellow is not your favorite color.
Instead, we have to suddenly flip on everything yellow, and go on about how foolish it was to have ever liked yellow, and to corroborate our new ideals with other yellow dislikers.
Van, the thing is, this is not about colours or clothes or anything as mundane as changing one’s mind. This is about entrapment with evil intent. We are talking about a man who presented himself as a hero, the saviour of mankind, who you’re not permitted to contradict, not if you know what is good for you.
He said, “Scientology is senior to life because it handles all of life.” Or words to that effect.
And the man was a fraud, a drug addict, a bigamist, a pathological liar who was really nearly the absolute opposite of how he portrayed himself to us. He told us, I studied the policy letters, that he didn’t make a cent from Scientology but he made millions while his staff starved and struggled.
We can take some of the data maybe and say it’s useful, that we have a new sort of awareness. But that’s it! It is entrapment.
And this carrot dangled in front of our noses while we’re being told all along the way that everything would come right on the next level of the Bridge. So we spent thousands and thousands of our hard earned cash and at the end of it all, what did we get? Very little. What a lot of people did get was crippling debt and bankruptcy.
Today, it’s not even about the Bridge but about buildings and raising funds (IAS) to pay for the umpteen law suits against the church.
The so called Friend of Man, who the few left in the limping church still declare he is, in actual fact, left a trail of devastation in his wake. He destroyed lives. He destroyed livelihoods. The whole mission thing wasn’t David Miscavige. He was acting on the instruction of Hubbard. Hubbard did things like this on a whim. He didn’t like the fact that the missions were doing well and coining it, to boot. He wasn’t receiving any of the money so he ended it. Click of the fingers and it was over.
So, Van, you are entitled to your opinion based on the information you have. But some of us have woken up. We’re disentangling ourselves if we haven’t done it already.
This is what we’re talking about here, Van.
Two things I left out of my reply to you, Van, and they are these:
David Miscavige’s lavish lifestyle – he certainly doesn’t live on $50 a week like his minions. Where do you think the financing comes from? The IAS fundraising, of course.
The biggest lie of all told by Mr Hubbard and Scientology is the one about “Your Eternity”, “Freedom.” These are the two most dastardly lies I’ve EVER been told – sure fire entrapment.
Again, Chris, thanks for the clear and thoughtful examination of a corner of my favourite cult. Additionally, your essay is a good reminder. Though it has been quite a while since I was a Scientologist, cognitive dissonance enters my thought patterns frequently, which I take to be normal. It is nice though, to be reminded that the phenomenon is there and should not be allowed to run wild.
Thank you for your time and trouble on this Chris. The 2nd video of the event was fun. You may like to breeze thru this article:
http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html
After understanding the phenomena more I can spot and correct it in my own life. It is pretty ‘heavy’ significance to get through however (I thought) but well worth the study as it explains why the greater part of my ‘cognitions’ since leaving have to do with false data I was hanging on to due to this CD condition pealing off and re-looking at my history. I love that we can change our mind like this 🙂
Pingback: ggallery.aeacides.Info