From: raz@socs.uts.edu.au (The Inimitable Raz)
Subject: Re: Scientology and intelligence
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date: 14 Dec 92 04:01:14 GMT

isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

>In article <raz.723351325@syzygy>, raz@socs.uts.edu.au 
>    (The Inimitable Raz) writes:
>> Why do you believe the registrar would lose sight of the "helping the
>> person" objective? 

>    Why the registrar sometimes loses sight of "helping the person" is
>a case situation, that is too technical for me to explain.  An appropriate
>tech reference is an HCOB called "Recognition of the Rightness of the Being"
>or something like that.

By "case situation" do you mean abberative behaviour in the registrar
him/herself? Incidentally, are HCOBs available to the general public?

>    The registrar might lose sight of helping and try to make quota,
>because they are humans also.  They often have a reactive mind and behave
>oddly just like the rest of the planet.  

>    The big picture and the function of the registrar is to get public
>signed up, paid for, and on to the service that will handle the person's
>ruin.  Its a tough job.  Sometimes they may make a mistake.


>> Looks to me like (s)he is just trying to meet a
>> quota. (This is not sour grapes incidentally, I can actually not see
>> that any other explanation makes sense.)
>>  

>    Right.  It's an error.  Not Scientology at all.  Scientology is about
>helping people.  When help occurs, making quota will happen by itself.
>Just trying to make quota often fails to help people.

At this point, a difference in definiton may be becoming apparent. I
would define the acts of Scn's representatives as Scn, REGARDLESS of
whether this individual has transgressed the organisation's (used here
to mean the whole of Scn rather than Org, used to mean a particular 
church/mission) written guidelines. 

If Scientology's representatives make mistakes, then this MUST be
considered when considering the application and operation of 
Scn as a whole.

Acknowledge this as an error, but don't attempt to divorce it from
Scn. It happened. It appears that it has happened to MANY people. I
believe that there are in fact survival risks inherent in Scn Ethics.
It is a little too simplistic (IMHO), as it needs to be for application
by the masses, to guarantee optimum survival.

>>>   I wish this didn't happen, but not many people in any field of sales 
>>>can high pressure somebody tactfully.  
>> 
>> Umm, this is a really interesting statement. Are you implying that
>> the church does indeed condone the use of (tactful) high pressure 
>> sales? 

>   In some situations yes, its appropriate.  

>> Are you aware of the general perception that exists (IMHO) that
>> high pressure sales techniques are specifically engineered to maximise
>> sales without regard to the possibility that the customer may not in
>> fact want/need/be able to realistically afford the product?
>> 

>   Yes, I was aware that that was the "general perception" as you
>put it.  However, the general perception doesn't apply here or anywhere
>else. 

On the contrary, this is Usenet. Unless you specify otherwise at
EACH instance, the general perception of a term DOES APPLY. See
below. 

> Sales techniques such as you describe just give sales a bad name.
>Successful sales people have no need for such tactics.

>   Probably, I shouldn't have used the words "high pressure".  As
>a salesman, I use those words in a different context than the "general
>perception".  Sorry about the error. 

Indeed you should not. I accept your apology. Please strive to prevent
this sort of thing (specifically use of a term in a sense other than 
its widely accepted usage without pointing out the difference in
intended meaning. I find this case particularly annoying because you
actually ARE aware of the common usage of the term. The approach you
have used (use of a term in an unusual sense without saying so)
definitely lowers ARC.)

>    Sounds to me like you had an unpleasent experience. 

You're not kidding! :-)

> Let me make this
>clear, I don't think that it should ever have happened.  If the registrar
>you talked to did that, I assure you it was their mistake.  

As may be, it is still relevant when considering Scn. (See above.) If
one registrar can make a mistake, so can others. They are still human
after all...

>   Only very poorly trained salespeople see sales as "convincing",
>professionals see it as "sorting".  Professionals would rather spend
>time with people who WANT than try to CONVICE others.

I agree. (Hell, I sell PCs, I know exactly what you are talking about.
The point is that - notably in Scn, vacuum cleaner sales, insurance
sales and perhaps Amway - it occurs.)

>> product or products that the salesman is selling. That is "bad"
>> particularly when it involves manipulation of the potential 
>> customer via his/her fears and insecurities. 
>>

>   I agree wholeheartedly.  Its "bad" when that happens.  The potential
>customer is pissed off, and will make you look bad.  You just missed
>the sale.  Nobody benefits.   What you describe isn't standard procedure
>for registration in Scientology orgs.   I'm not saying it never happens,
>just that its not the norm. 

Fair enough. It does occur though... (Ahem, this is true :-))

>-gotta run...
>-John Holifield


--
Bye for now.
         - Raz           

raz@socs.uts.edu.au   (Roland Turner)   (OH) 61 2 319 5700