From: thomson@cs.sfu.ca (Brian Thomson)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Questions
Message-ID: <1991Aug12.152746.8307@cs.sfu.ca>
Date: 12 Aug 91 15:27:46 GMT
Distribution: alt.religion.scientology
Organization: Simon Fraser University
Lines: 120
Sender:thomson@cs.sfu.ca

christir@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Christi)  writes:
| the following are some descriptions of behaviour i have observed in
| one or more scientologists.  i'm wondering if someone could tell me if
| this is related to scientology...

| i would prefer to see posted responses from people in scientology,
| former scientologists, or friends/family of scientologists who may
| have observed (or not) similar behaviour.

What follows is just my opinion.  Not guaranteed correct.

| 1)  not responding to someone who is arguing with you. (example:
| husband and wife have a fight... the wife (a scientologist) does not
| argue, but simply sits and waits for the husband to finish)

If she was well trained then ideally she would listen and acknowledge
and really try to understand his side of the story.  Certainly the
"yes you did", "no I didn't" kind of exchange would be unusual for a
Scientologist that was trying to act properly. However, badly done, this
kind of thing can be equally unproductive. She sits (sullenly) listening
to him, (sarcastically) acknowledging him and then (viciously) says "now
you can shut up and listen to my side of the story".

| 2)  an idea that if you have a problem it's your fault. (example:  you
| do not like your job, therefore you do not understand your job)

(Well if you didn't understand your job I'd bet you wouldn't like it!)
Badly applied this kind of thing is very annoying, and plently of people
apply the stuff really badly.  It comes from the therapy [technology].
In order to handle peoples "problems" generally one needs a broad range
of techniques.  What you are describing is called "coffee shop auditing".
The real therapy is very nonevaluative; coffee shop auditing is pretty
evaluative.  You say "I hate my wife!", I immediately say "What have you
done to your wife?".   Once in a while it works.  But there are lots of
reasons for problems and only some of them are directly "your fault".

| 3)  an idea that if two people can't resolve a problem then someone
| else must be at fault (example: boy and girl get into a fight, and
| can't resolve it.  boy decides that it must be because the girl's
| father hates him.)

This is LRH stuff.  Note that it really should be applied only when they
really *can't* resolve the conflict and have genuinely tried.  It isn't
always true, but a third party can often be the source of difficulties.
It's worth thinking about.  (But, in your example, if spotting the father
as the source doesn't very quickly resolve the conflict then the boy was
wrong.)

| 4)  a belief all that it takes to change a bad situation is for it to
| change (example: the schools are bad around here.  stop teaching that
| way and use scientology methods)

No idea.  Sounds rather simple minded to me too.   Try to find a
Scientologist with an IQ over 90 and maybe you can have a reasonable
discussion of how to change bad situations.

| 5)  when talking to someone, if they say something you don't agree
| with simply respond with something like "ok" (example: father doesn't
| want son to move in with a girl.  when father tells his son this son
| responds with "ok".  son moves in with girl anyway.)

Reminds me of the scene in "Semi-Tough".  The Werner Erhard (EST) type
character is confronted by a young woman in the audience unhappy with the
treatment; he says (unctiously) "I acknowedge that!".  Annoying isn't it?
Its a common misapplication of Scientology ideas too.  (There are plenty
of Scientology idiots who think that this is a correct application of the
ideas.)

| 6)  a tendency to use words in ways other than standard definitions.

An educated and informed person exposed to Scientology jargon usually
learns to express himself differently depending on the environment.
Ignorant people think that phrases like "that's an overt", "havingness",
"comm lines", "stuck flows", "second dynamic problems" etc. make sense in
the real world.

| 7)  a tendency to deny what someone has read because they might not
| have understood everything. (example: someone reads something in HCOB.
| scientologist claims their conclusions don't mean anything because
| they may not have understood what pc means)

LRH has rather oversimplified education by declaring that the only reason
anyone has trouble with learning a subject is because of misunderstood
words.  Sounds like your friends are trying to apply the converse.

| 8)  refusal to explain something in scientology because there would be
| too many words that the other person would not understand.

If you understand the jargon then you can certainly translate it into
normal-speak (although the translation is not very economical).  Many
Scientologists are too inarticulate to speak in any other language though
and wouldn't know how to explain the ideas outside of the jargon.

| 9)  a tendency to attribute anything bad about scientology to someone
| being against scientology (i.e. non-scientologist reads an article in
| people magazine about scientology.  scientologist claims that the
| press is against scientology, therefore none of it should be believed)

Attack the attacker.  Smear the source.  Carried to extremes it has put a
number of Scientologists in jail.  Don't ask me to defend it.

| 10) a tendency to attack those who speak negatively about scientology
| (i.e.  non-scientologist quotes flynn on something.  scientologist
| goes into a tirade about how flynn is just out to make money on
| ex-scientologists)

Same as 9) isn't it?

Incidentally you missed a few other stereotypes.  Many people complain
about the wide eyed, vacant stare-into-the-eyes you get from
Scientologists.  Anybody out there got a bigger list?

-BST