Unless looked at Dianetics at all, and it's historical weirdness, I'm going to refer to your response as 'glib' if anything. If you did, you'd see there are gl

Unless looked at Dianetics at all, and it's historical weirdness, I'm going to refer to your response as 'glib' if anything. If you did, you'd see there are glaringly obvious relationship between what is discussed in the article, and the basis of Dianetics; not just 'similar' they are effectively describing the same thing. " resemble something else that has been debunked aren't part of that." 'Dianetics' has not been debunked so much as it hasn't been studied because it's full of all sorts of things that don't make sense (it would be pointless). But - there are some interesting and possibly valid points in there, for example - the idea described in this article. And consider that everything in psychology seems to be 'debunked' as we still don't have a good framework for understanding the human mind. To boot - most psychological 'science' can't even be reproduced in 2018. And I literally mean most [1]. Dianetics is mostly nutbars, but the similarity between what is described in the article, and what was popularized by Dianetics long ago is not superficial, it's quite strong. It doesn't matter that L Ron Hubbard was a hustler. [1] https://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248 https://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-...