4 ms·

Yeah this is Dianetics i.e. Scientology! I'm not supporting them at all, they are a cult, but the the original basis for Scientology was Dianetics and it's rela

Yeah this is Dianetics i.e. Scientology! I'm not supporting them at all, they are a cult, but the the original basis for Scientology was Dianetics and it's related to this.

0xcde4c3db 8y ago
I think it's more that Dianetics and this class of methods both derive from classical psychoanalysis. The broad concepts are similar, but the specific methods seem to be very different.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  That's a good point. But not only is the rough observation of 'previous episodes of trauma causing seemingly irrelevant malaise and illness' interesting ... the methods is similar in some case as well. For example, for soldiers with PTSD, one of the more beneficial therapies seems to be having a health professional help the soldier 'revisit' the experience. They do this over and over until there's less PTSD associated with the event. This is remarkably similar to the process of 'auditing' in Scientology - at least in terms of discovering and revisiting points of trauma. They call it 'processing'. As far as I am concerned they are the same thing, point blank. But I also agree that Dianetics probably did not entirely originate this, rather making the point that this has been popularized already for some time.
bryanSmith0 8y ago
I also was reminded of Scientology and what they call "Engrams". It's popular to criticize Scientology and thus its ideas are often dismissed without evaluation. Perhaps Scientology and other controversial ideologies contain valuable elements or methods which are absent from more reputable institutions. They would not gain such a devoted following if they offered 0 value.
e40 8y ago
And the website.. global and mail... seriously, this is not HN worthy.
- theoh 8y ago
  It's the biggest newspaper in Canada. What is the problem?
  - e40 8y ago
    I got it confused with Daily Mail. Downvotes warranted.
theoh 8y ago
"it's related to this". It sounds similar, maybe, but that doesn't mean that it's the same thing. To glibly conflate this with Scientology is very sloppy thinking. Scientific progress calls for ideas and evidence to be evaluated on their merits. Accusations of "guilt by association" when a particular idea happens to vaguely resemble something else that has been debunked aren't part of that.
- bryanSmith0 8y ago
  Except there was no accusation of guilt by association. An association was made, yes. What is the accusation?
  - theoh 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#Guilt_by_association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#Guilt_by_a... The comment effectively accused the doctors of charlatanism.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - bryanSmith0 8y ago
      Read it again. You are equating scientology and dianetics to charlatanism, not the author of the inital reply. He/She simply stated "x is like y". Why did you flag my other responses, which correctly pointed out that you are the one making the fallacy of guilt by association, not the author?
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      No, I did not accuse the doctors of charlatanism. I said there was an obvious relationship between some of the underpinnings of Dianetics and what is described in this article. This is patently obvious to anyone who's read Dianetics, and the article. I don't support Dianetics overall as anything reasonable because it's mostly rubbish, but again, some of the ideas expressed in there are nary identical to what is described in the article, which is just a fact. Not everything is black and white: a lot of current psychology is scientifically rubbish, and a lot of ideas postulated in the past by not-so-straight people are at least interesting, and may have shades of validity.
crawfordcomeaux 8y ago
So you've done research into this form of psychotherapy to confirm if it is the same as Dianetics? Or is this article the extent of your research?

Yeah this is Dianetics i.e. Scientology! I'm not supporting them at all, they are a cult, but the the original basis for Scientology was Dianetics and it's related to this.

0xcde4c3db 8y ago

I think it's more that Dianetics and this class of methods both derive from classical psychoanalysis. The broad concepts are similar, but the specific methods seem to be very different.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
That's a good point. But not only is the rough observation of 'previous episodes of trauma causing seemingly irrelevant malaise and illness' interesting ... the methods is similar in some case as well. For example, for soldiers with PTSD, one of the more beneficial therapies seems to be having a health professional help the soldier 'revisit' the experience. They do this over and over until there's less PTSD associated with the event. This is remarkably similar to the process of 'auditing' in Scientology - at least in terms of discovering and revisiting points of trauma. They call it 'processing'. As far as I am concerned they are the same thing, point blank. But I also agree that Dianetics probably did not entirely originate this, rather making the point that this has been popularized already for some time.

bryanSmith0 8y ago

I also was reminded of Scientology and what they call "Engrams". It's popular to criticize Scientology and thus its ideas are often dismissed without evaluation. Perhaps Scientology and other controversial ideologies contain valuable elements or methods which are absent from more reputable institutions. They would not gain such a devoted following if they offered 0 value.

e40 8y ago

And the website.. global and mail... seriously, this is not HN worthy.

theoh 8y ago
It's the biggest newspaper in Canada. What is the problem?
- e40 8y ago
  I got it confused with Daily Mail. Downvotes warranted.

theoh 8y ago

"it's related to this". It sounds similar, maybe, but that doesn't mean that it's the same thing. To glibly conflate this with Scientology is very sloppy thinking. Scientific progress calls for ideas and evidence to be evaluated on their merits. Accusations of "guilt by association" when a particular idea happens to vaguely resemble something else that has been debunked aren't part of that.

bryanSmith0 8y ago
Except there was no accusation of guilt by association. An association was made, yes. What is the accusation?
- theoh 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#Guilt_by_association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#Guilt_by_a... The comment effectively accused the doctors of charlatanism.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - bryanSmith0 8y ago
    Read it again. You are equating scientology and dianetics to charlatanism, not the author of the inital reply. He/She simply stated "x is like y". Why did you flag my other responses, which correctly pointed out that you are the one making the fallacy of guilt by association, not the author?
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    No, I did not accuse the doctors of charlatanism. I said there was an obvious relationship between some of the underpinnings of Dianetics and what is described in this article. This is patently obvious to anyone who's read Dianetics, and the article. I don't support Dianetics overall as anything reasonable because it's mostly rubbish, but again, some of the ideas expressed in there are nary identical to what is described in the article, which is just a fact. Not everything is black and white: a lot of current psychology is scientifically rubbish, and a lot of ideas postulated in the past by not-so-straight people are at least interesting, and may have shades of validity.

crawfordcomeaux 8y ago

So you've done research into this form of psychotherapy to confirm if it is the same as Dianetics? Or is this article the extent of your research?