Path: rambo.bobo.net!xs4all!xs4all!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!207.155.183.80.MISMATCH!global-news-master
From: inFormer@informer.org (Rev Dennis Erlich)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: "Shattered" minds
Date: 23 Nov 1998 19:06:41 PST
Organization: inFormer Ministry [a 501(c)3 non-profit, religious organization] "... in service of cult victims and their families."
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <365c0259.2206441@news.concentric.net>
Reply-To: informer@informer.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: ts030d24.lax-ca.concentric.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
X-No-Archive: yes
Xref: rambo.bobo.net alt.religion.scientology:147130

rebecca
>>>may have been influenced by factors other than
>>>Scientology itself or, at least, by Scientology alone.

yhn
>>   Like what?  Their own prior pathology?  Wtf are you getting at
>>here, Rebecca?

>I wouldn't call it "pathology" but--yes, absolutely, by their prior
>psychological vulnerability.  

   Right.  

>What I'm getting at here is the same thing
>I've been saying all along.  Please refer to the original snippet--quoted in
>this message by you--wherein I say the same thing.  I haven't been changing
>my tune during this discussion.  I'm still saying the same thing I said at
>the get-go.

   So we inoculated rather than legislate.

>>   You saw the Milgrim experiment.  Were those inflicters influenced
>>by factors other than the circumstances created for them?  Wasn't
>>authority enough to get them to harm others?
>
>Those who chose to apply the "shocks" to the "learners" in the Milgram
>experiment were influenced primarily by their own predisposition to obey
>authority figures.  

   As taught in grades k-12, on tv and in the malls.

>Keep in mind, not everyone in the Milgram experiment
>complied with the "scientist's" orders.  

   But the experiment as a whole, was later adjudicated to be human
experimentation, was it not?  And wasn't such experimentation finally
forbidden by authorities?

>For those who were predisposed,
>yes, authority was sufficient motivation for them to harm others.  The
>Milgram experiment is fascinating, for sure, and tells us a lot about how
>frequently people will obey authority figures in a controlled environment,
>but I'm not convinced it's a very good explanation for cult membership.

   It's only one of many manipulative factors at work upon cult
members.

>There are some significant differences:  For example, as I mention above,
>Milgram's lab was a controlled environment.  The test subjects didn't have
>the opportunity to go home at night to think over what they had done the day
>before and to discuss it with others.

   But they were controlled into doing things they wouldn't normally
do in a matter of minutes.  Cult members are given such influence for
as long as it takes to get them compliant.

>>   Hubbard was the greatest one for experimenting on humans.
>
>I have no doubt that Hubbard was as crazy as they come.  I just don't think
>Scientology is particularly harmful to the great majority of people who come
>into contact with it.

   Because they walk away before they are harmed?

   Rev Dennis Erlich  * * the inFormer * *
           <inForm@primenet.com>
            <inForm@newsguy.com>