Keith Henson wrote:
> Wolf (wolft...@micron.net) wrote:
> : <snip>
> : > Rats will press a lever to get this kind
> : > of stimulation, ignoring food, sex, or anything else till they die.
> : This is where we diverge in thinking. Not that rats will do such things,
> : but that any direct comparison can really be made to humans, especially
> : in explaining cults.
> Ignoring the cult angle, humans *do* react very much the same way as rats
> (or any other mammals) when they have electrodes in the analogous place
> in the brain. You might ask how this was permitted as an ethical matter.
> The way it was justified was that it was done on people who were locked
> up for violent behavior and it was thought that self stimulation in this
> area of the brain might be able to interrupt the rage storm which was
> disrupting their lives. It has been a *long* time since this work was
> done, but if you really want me to, I think I can find the reference to it.
Rebecca's post cited one such example... which only partly bore out your
suggestion. The physiology of the human brain would seem to be overly
complicated to expect similar results anyway.
> Unless they are bred to have nearly identical genes, animals don't have
> much more uniform reactions than people do. Cats in particular tend to
> have a variety of reactions. And, I do mention that there is considerable
> variation in how humans react to cults and drugs.
Good point. I suppose you're suggesting that animal testing brings
uniformity (when it does) because of genetic similarities. I'll look
into this.
> : <snip electrical/drug/endorphin examples>
> : So long as you're convinced (as I understand you to be) that all human
> : experience, reaction and action are brain-driven this makes sense. You
> : know my views and history well enough to know I am not so convinced.
> Occam's razor. You don't need to invoke invisible causal agents to
> account for the observations. If you don't need them, they complicate
> the picture needlessly.
Tell that to Gallileo. Up into proper instruments were invented and then
accepted (which seems to have been difficult at the time) for perceiving
the invisible causal agents, they complicated the picture then as well.
Same holds for the microscope. Occam's Razor indeed.
> : > For the most affected, scientology is a good value the way heroin is a
> : > good value for an addict.
> : Using your theory, it could easily be stated that picketing, like
> : heroin, is a good value for those who engage in it for the pleasure
> : received due to the stimulation of pleasure centers in their brains. I
> : don't think you did what you did because you're addicted to endorphins
> : Keith. Though it's possible you may think so.
> Wolf, humans tend to rationalizing animals rather than rational ones. I
> surely get pleasure, and respect, and attention from a lot of people for
> my somewhat lackadasical efforts at picketing scientology. I don't tend
> to get addicted (in the withdrawal sense) even to opiates. But people do
> things they find enjoyable, even when there are many levels, such as a
> sense of duty, involved.
We're on the same page here.
> : Again, I'll use the example of you and others around the world who rush
> : off to picket (no doubt getting an adrenaline rush and flood of
> : endorphins from the confrontational nature of the experience) and then
> : key in reports to soak up the after-rush and glow from the admiration
> : given them by their peers.
> I could not have stated it better myself, Wolf.
It's one of my better qualities...
> : <snip>
> : > While the last three paragraphs are a speculative extension on what is
> : > accepted, they fit with the rest of the model and tie a number of
> : > observations, such as the similar behavior patterns you see in drug and
> : > cult addiction.
> : In short, what you're explaining is not only why some people get
> : involved in Scientology, but why other people get involved in ARS. I
> : don't buy it, but then you already knew that.
> I don't think my model is far enough along to expect everyone, or even a
> high fraction of people to buy it. But I think it deserves consideration,
> and testing to see if some major chunk of it does not hold up.
FWIW, my observations of some of the more fanatical Scn - usually SO
members or breathless new converts - fits somewhat into your
suggestions. I also agree that similar behaviours occur amongst any
collection of people. Whether it explains anything at all, or that
anything of value could come out of an explaination, remains to be seen.
> I think you will agree that some people on cults and some people on drugs
> have similar behavior patterns which often screw up their lives to the
> point of precluding children (or at least grandchildren).
Yep.
> : > Many, perhaps most, people manage to keep their drug consumptions under
> : > control. Some, perhaps even most, people keep cult involvement from
> : > ruining their lives. A few manage to make good money off of drugs or
> : > cults.
> : > Sound familiar? :-) Keith Henson
> : LOL! Sure does. Keith is referring to the fact that I made a damned good
> : living selling Scientology services for many years. He also knows me
> : well enough (electronically) to know where my area of interests have
> : been the last 15 years.
> <grin> You might note that I don't have a problem with dope dealers
> either.
Nor do shifty engineers who speak tecnho-babble bother me.
> : The comparison of one 'being addicted' to cults (read:CofS) in the same
> : way as some people are addicted to drugs or (as I was for years)
> : addicted to dangerous sports or physical activities is compelling on the
> : surface. So long as you don't apply it to yourself or, more
> : specifically, to being addicted to ARS or anti-CofS activities.
> Why not? If you get insight on the human condition and fail to apply it
> to yourself, you have a sorry grade of insight.
Rhetorical question... sort of. Point being simply that most people, if
they saw that their actions were similar to those they rail against
would, at the very least, have to accept that they were without
scruples, or possibly re-examine and change their own methods of dealing
with others.
> : So... it's up to you folks... Keith is a strong opinion leader and
> : well-respected ARS advocate. Do you buy it? If Scientologists are merely
> : the victims of an 'addiction' syndrome, then the same must hold true for
> : you. Which makes you pretty much the same as Scientologists... all
> : you're here for is the rush.
> Not entirely for the rush. Remember I said human are rationalizing
> animals rather than rational. Fortunately scientology has made it very
> easy to rationalize what we do as protecting lives and freedoms. We are
> effective in saving people from wasting their lives and doing damage to
> others from Hubbard's transplanted madness known as scientology. I
> certainly get a lot of enjoyment reading about Stacy pulling another one
> out of the cult. How much of what we do is for "higher human causes" and
> how much is for the rush/approval is something which would be very
> difficult to sort out. Both are obviously important and interwoven.
> BTW, Wolf, these considerations apply to *any* activity humans do,
> especially to those done in groups. A happy work environment, a political
> campaign, a happy home, getting involved with a cult or a garden club.
> They either all fit the model or none of them do. (Though most activities
> do not reach the consuming level of dedicated scientologists or those of
> ARSCC (wdne) members.)
> Having some level of understanding of what makes human minds (including
> my own) tick does not protect me from getting passionately involved. It
> (obviously) doesn't even protect me from folly. But it might give me a
> slight edge in playing out this hand.
Well said. And it points up what I have been saying pretty much all
along. Scn is not, by nature, any more or less harmful than almost any
other organized human activity. If you're going to pit yourself against
it, you might as well start off by making an effort to understand what
makes it so compelling to large numbers of people. ARS regulars, FTMP,
have failed to even make a beginning at that.
Wolf
