Here’s What Makes a Scientologist Stupid

2 Stupid Scientologists

Two of Scientology’s Towering Mental Giants Navigate the Crowd at a Car Race. What do you think they’re talking about?

I wrote this after dealing with a swarm of Scientologists on the Internet:

I’ve seen it now. It is unmistakable.

It works like this: You present an idea that has NOTHING to do with Scientology, and the Scientologist must relate it to something in Scientology to “understand” what you are talking about.

Example: I wrote something on an Internet forum frequented by Scientologists called “Theoretical Constructs vs. Actual Facts”. I wanted to make the point that facts are different from the conclusions which evolve from thinking about them.

For instance, the concept of “Imperialism” comes from observing nations setting up colonies all around the world.

Colonies are a fact. You can point to them. You can visit them and even touch parts of them. They exist in time and space.

Imperialism, however, is a theoretical construct used to explain those facts.

Imperialism does not exist in a way that can be proven and touched like facts can. Imperialism is something that exists only in our heads. It is used to think about and explain the facts of colonies. The concept of Imperialism contains certain conclusions and comments and attitudes which may or may not be related to a colony as it really exists.

I wanted to make the point that if you fill your head with unprovable theoretical constructs, not grounded in facts, then your reasoning suffers. I gave example after example. I showed how substituting facts for theoretical constructs leads to more accurate conclusions in the reasoning process. And I showed that if you use theoretical constructs to do all your thinking for you – without being continually grounded in facts – you go off the rails.

This is a pretty simple concept, really.

Right?

I watched one Scientologist after another come in and relate this to Scientology thought patterns – one after the other.

“Oh, I get it. Like the physical universe vs. the theta universe!”

“It’s like Mass vs. significance!”

“Theory vs. Practical!”

Or “Para-Scientology vs. Scientology!”

It was endless. Only one Scientologist got it. It was this guy from Norway named Geir. Every single other Scientologist could not understand this concept outside of something in Scientology. And therefore, since this concept does not exist in Scientology, they never understood it.

And I saw: This is why Scientologists are stupid.

Their thinking must follow only certain patterns and never others.

If a unique concept is not mentioned in Scientology, then the Scientologist must change the concept to fit into their existing Scientology thinking patterns, rather than adapting their thinking to the unique concept so as to understand it as itself.

It was quite an exhausting experience.

Afterwards, I had to lie down and take a nappy.

,

11 Responses to Here’s What Makes a Scientologist Stupid

  1. Mark Foster November 2, 2014 at 12:41 pm #

    THIS! 🙂

  2. Alanzo November 2, 2014 at 12:51 pm #

    Welcome, Mark!

    I’ve seen you around on Tony’s Blog.

    Good to have you here.

    Alanzo

  3. Mark Foster November 3, 2014 at 5:21 am #

    Yeah, I´ve been up all night reading your blog. GREAT STUFF!
    I´ve been sitting by myself, nodding my head and laughing out loud
    as I read. Please keep blogging!

    • Alanzo November 3, 2014 at 8:53 am #

      It was great to wake up this morning to your comments, Mark.

      I was a staff member, too. For 7 and a half years. So now I work doing this for free!

      Alanzo

  4. Marta November 4, 2014 at 5:04 pm #

    Hi Alanzo,

    Terrific blog! I appreciate your musings, conclusions, and inimitable style.

    • Alanzo November 4, 2014 at 5:13 pm #

      Thank you Marta!

      Good to see so many SPs gathering here. It makes me nervous because I know that I could be stabbed in the back at any time. But it feels so natural at the same time, too. I’m experiencing such cognitive dissonance.

      It’s like a nice, warm, homey den of snakes!

      Alanzo

  5. Zach Jackson November 10, 2014 at 3:31 pm #

    Alanzo, interesting observation.

    But I am not sure if these are examples of Scns having to relate everything to Scn, or Scns merely attempting to use a “datum of comparable magnitude” in order to understand an unfamiliar concept.

    Admittedly, it should be possible to understand something without having to use a “datum of comparable magnitude” at all; however, when one CAN do this, I think the understanding achieved is far more real to the person (even if that understanding is colored by the “comparison”).

    That is: You can certainly try to understand something totally and only as itself, without comparing it to anything else. But, when you CAN legitimately compare two things (something new against something old), I think this may assist in understanding.

    The problem, of course, is the fact that one thing is NOT necessarily another thing; and, therefore, to the degree that the “datum of comparable magnitude” is NOT really “comparable”, this method becomes less useful.

    Beyond this, given the ubiquity of brainwashing and indoctrination in our society, I would suggest that most people do this: NOT compare everything to Scn; but people tend to compare new information against information already considered to be known. And this seems perfectly reasonable.

    Therefore, you may, yet again, be singling out Scns for something we see elsewhere and for something that may be entirely natural.

    ZJ

    • Alanzo November 10, 2014 at 3:40 pm #

      Zach Jackson wrote:

      “Beyond this, given the ubiquity of brainwashing and indoctrination in our society, I would suggest that most people do this: NOT compare everything to Scn; but people tend to compare new information against information already considered to be known. And this seems perfectly reasonable.”

      Ever heard of this?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

      The problem that is laid out in the post is that theoretical constructs are not related to facts like “mass” is related “significance” in Scientology, or any of the other Scientology constructs they were trying to use. Because the Scientology constructs they were using were completely inadequate to understand it, they never ended up understanding it.

      So when a Scientologist goes through life doing that, he ends up stupid.

      Alanzo

      • Zach Jackson November 10, 2014 at 4:05 pm #

        You only make my point. This is the weakness with using a “datum of comparable magnitude”: In an attempt to compare “apples and apples”, you could end up comparing “apples and oranges”.

        But still not sure that this is not a rather natural form of thought, when attempting to understand something new.

        If I was a Christian, I would compare every new datum against THAT existing knowledge. If I was a physicist, I would compare every new datum against THAT existing knowledge. So I am NOT surprised that a Scns would use Scn first and foremost, in their attempt to understand something new.

        And, of course, EVERYONE comes off stupid, to the degree that these comparisons fail.

        Finally, I note that you fail to respond to the real point of my comment: that this does NOT appear to be anything unique to Scns. I do not believe there is something inherently wrong or “more stupid” with Scns, because they may do this.

  6. John Doe February 16, 2018 at 10:20 am #

    Good post, Alanzo!

    I think Zach makes some good points, but I’ve also seen many a Scientologist seem to need to translate a new concept into how Hubbard may have stated it similarly in Scientology terms.

    I think it can be misinterpreted, however, why the Scientologist (or even a regular, non-Homo Novis might engage in this).

    When one has committed to having an ideology be the framework that explains everything for you, one becomes quite invested in having that ideology be accurate.

    Rather than having to translate a new concept into scientologese for the purpose of trying to understand something, I think the effort to redefine it can often be an effort to defend the Scientology construct or world view. I think this phenomenon happens more frequently when a new idea is confronted outside the Scientology data bubble that makes sense or seems logical. The Scientologist then tries to amoeba this new construct into his existing data bubble.

    If the new construct seems illogical, absurd, or so tainted by association (“that’s a psych brain concept!”) then the new idea can be rejected outright, and the new idea does not have to be integrated.

    This defense-of-ideology happens more frequently with the smarter and more broadly curious folks. I know, as I used to be quite expert at this!

    • Alanzo February 16, 2018 at 11:17 am #

      I know, as I used to be quite expert at this!

      Me too!

Clicky