Talk:Dianetics/Archive 1

message: A question occured to me recently while visiting a related web site.
If I was an outspoken critic of psychology, or better, an anti-psychology activist, would it be appropriate or even acceptable if I started to get involved in the overall shaping of the psychology page, gradually assumed some sort of moderator role and started censoring changes made by others to that page to better suit my viewpoint?
-- Xernon, 10.12.2004
It would be as acceptable as if you were an outspoken adherant. ~~~~ 01:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship 

message: I sorted the whole article - first one section on Scientology's view of Dianetics and then one of independent scientific views. 
I hunted every para down for possible sources, found them and then had to reformulate it according to what the source actually said - references are added. General critics of Scientology with nothing but personal opinions to offer I left out - no substantial contribution to this article. If someone absolutely thinks this needs to be referenced, a "See also" to Scientology controversy should be enough, no need to repeat everything here. --Irmgard 22:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete Reorganisation 

message: ::Your first reference study is by Harvey Jay Fisher. I understand Harvey was a student, writing a paper at a teacher's college. Do you have any scientific type credentials for this person?  
::: Title Page of Harvey's Study: Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Education of New York University. So evidently he was a bit more than a student. That's all I know about him, though. One more point in his favor is, that his study is in correct academic format. --Irmgard 22:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The study I refenced in Science of Survival has three eminent psychological people developing a strict protocol with state of the art mensuration. That study seems to have resulted in about 10 IQ points gain for the 88 participants. Harvey seemed to have read it but attempted to reduce the hours to a minimum, the training to zero and spread the hours thinly over as long a time as possible. This is the opposite of Dianetic procedure where intensive auditing means all the auditing a person wants and that results in 15 to 25 hours per week instead of 1 to 2 per week, as Harvey's study shows. It makes me curious as to how he was able to achieve this low rate. The rate is so low that one auditor could easily have done all the auding in the study. Harvey did not use Dianetic intensive procedure and in fact, reversed the intention of it which is to maximize gains. This low delivery rate alerts my attention that this is student auditing delivered on a research basis where the student does three sessions and then graduates. I understand the protocols and methods were not disclosed to the organization until after the fact of the paper. LLH--207.69.138.199 17:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no problem mentioning this study as well - but to qualify as scientific study it would need at least the names of the three guys, title and approximate date and where it has been published. If it is in Science of Survival and nowhere else documented, then it could be quoted as "Hubbard claims in SOS page xx-yy that a study by etc. etc." Sure, this can also be referenced, but the reference then goes to Hubbard. Regarding the Harvey study - sorry, your opinion here is not asked for (neither is mine) - but such doubts of the study could (and even should) be mentioned, if they were published, e.g. by Scientology, and could be referenced. (verifiable facts resp. statements) --Irmgard 22:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LLH's point is well taken. Spreading auditing out over a long period of time (an hour or two a week) can not apply to a Dianetics study because it ignores the technology.  This is one of the often misunderstood elements,  you audit the guy intensively and you get results.  There is a whole body of technology about how to keep your communication cycles really really clean, when to audit, that the guy is well rested and fed, that you are not auditing over certain sorts of real time problems the guy might have and a lot more.  Without these many elements in place it is not Dianetics. A scientific study might have followed all of these procedures. Terryeo 22:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Studies 

message: Substituted at 20:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment