How to get a scientologist to talk to you

By Michael Leonard Tilse more
27 September 2003
Copyright (c) 2003

Source: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/3deb6101917ea497

How to get a Scientologist to talk to you. Essay

Copyright (c) 2003, Michael Leonard Tilse, All rights reserved.
No scientology organization or entity has any authorization to copy, print or store this essay in any form, including electronic messaging systems, databases, hardcopy or as information stored on information storage and retrieval systems. Doing so is a violation of my copyright. Anybody else can read it and print it and share it as long as it is in its original form, unaltered and with this copyright notice intact. This essay is my opinion, authored for individuals and expressed under my inalienable rights of freedom of expression, speaking and writing, recognized and unrecognized.

27 September 2003  Copyright (c) 2003, Michael Leonard Tilse

How to get a Scientologist to talk to you.

Recently I wrote an essay entitled: "How to talk to a scientologist." Now revised to version 1.1 It seems to be well received and useful. But it has been mentioned that it is hard get scientologists to really talk with you. Instead, they seem to be interested only in recruiting, or if you are a critic, making you wrong.

Now, I think this is a limited view. When I was in scientology and talking with my friends who were scientologists, many times we would talk about how mad we were that somebody was doing unethical things, or our failures or things that we knew we needed to fix about ourselves.

We all hoped that we could use scientology to improve these things. And we were privately amazed and disgusted when someone on OT VII would refuse to pay rent for a house they occupied and then also refuse to leave the house. And the scientologist who was owner couldn't get them thrown out because the deadbeat was "high on the bridge."

Or I heard about a scientologist company owner who gave the weeks payroll to the IAS and then gathered the staff and told them the company was now a "Patron", and they would have to wait to get paid. (Actual event described as a "win", and communicated to me by IAS West US Membership Tour staff.)

We would have these kinds of talks where we shared our feelings and our opinions, the internal scientology gossip, quite often in the best give and take manner of the scientology communication formula. Real communication.

But, no matter how much these kind of events horrified me or my friends, we would never reveal them to any non-scientologists. It would be bad "PR". And so no real communication about these matters would escape the fold. Or so we thought.

When I was in scientology and talking to someone who was not a scientologist I would suppress my dissatisfactions and try to win them over to become a scientologist. And when I confronted a critic I would try to intimidate them and make them wrong. So strong was my self-created hope that scientology worked for me that the trance like state of needing to remain in scientology continued in the face of these things that didn't make sense. It was a picture of scientology that I kept putting in front of my eyes, kept hoping for, instead of the actual state of things.

There is another reason why you cannot get a scientologist to really talk to you. It is because they are intent on doing something to you. In most cases, this is the so-called "dissemination drill." This "dissem" drill is designed to bring you to understanding that scientology is for you. It has specific parts to it and a scientologist who is trying to recruit you is going through the steps of the drill. Their attention is on the drill and how to move you through it, not on really communicating with you. Some times their communication is only feigned so as to make it appear they are really interested in you, when really they are intent on doing the drill to get you "in."

One thing used is the steps of "help", "control", "communication" and "interest". First will come a discussion or mention of "help" and how people should be helped. And of course it is hard to disagree with that. Next will be a mention of or perhaps an example of "control". Such as you bringing them a book when they asked or passing the salt cellar they requested. An explanation follows about control not being bad if it is direct and unharmful. Perhaps the idea that control of a car is good contrasted with lack of control. And it is hard to disagree there also. And so on with communication which we also agree is necessary. By then we are supposed to be interested in what the scientologist has to say.

I think these steps, while appearing benign, are really a kind of hypnotic induction that makes it difficult to disagree with the scientologist while making the subject of this procedure suggestible. Of course, even though Hubbard was a master hypnotist, scientologists would deny that this has anything to do with hypnotism. Even if it was hypnotism, it might be justified as being useful, as long as it made more scientologists.

Another thing that happens, if you are a critic and they know it, is that they will use scientology principles to try to introvert you or chop off your communication.

An instance is the famous "LaserClam" who posts to the usenet news group "alt.religion.scientology." This thing posts questions designed to make a person posting to or reading the forum to introvert. These are similar to questions that would be used in scientology style counseling, designed to bring upsetting feelings to the forefront for repair. But in such a forum no repair can occur, only upset. Surely a black use of scientology technology.

So, I have some basis for understanding why a critic or an outsider sometimes can't get a scientologist to talk to them.

What is the solution? I have no pat answer. Certainly any communication you make with the idea to forcibly or slyly "change their mind", will be met with resistance. That is not a way to real communication.

So, how DO you get a scientologist to talk with you?

I have a suggestion, which might alienate various critics, but which I want to explore in this essay. Call it a working hypothesis. It extends from my own experience and the experiences I have read in the stories of ex-scientologists. Among them Tory Christman and Arnie Lerma. And lest you think otherwise, no, I'm not covertly trying to make you into a scientologist.

You see, one of the reasons I am out of scientology is that I experienced a refusal to apply scientology basics by staff members, ethics officers and management. In fact it might be the basic reason. I couldn't understand how the simplest basics of scientology writings were being ignored wholesale when I tried to apply them to my experiences in the church itself.

Having the understanding of scientology basics that I do, and being faced with the continued refusal of the church of scientology to use them created the conflict that eventually drove me out. I tried for years to figure out why this was happening. I tried to fix myself by getting scientology counseling. Yet, in the end I simply couldn't reconcile how I was being treated, as compared with what I expected from studying basic scientology principles.

I think Arnie Lerma experienced an extreme form of this same kind of conflict. When he was threatened with physical harm if he didn't call off his impending marriage to Hubbard's daughter Suzette, on orders from the "top", it was a conflict. I think that at a basic level, this was so obviously NOT scientology that it broke the trance. As he relates, it shattered the "pavlovian conditioning".

What happened to Lisa McPherson was not scientology. This is one reason why many scientologists have a hard time believing what you say about it. It is simply inconceivable that it would happen. But once they read official documents like the felony indictments, read the deposition transcripts, it begins to dawn on them that what happened, and is being vigorously defended by the church, would never have happened if simple basic scientology like "if you are sick, see a doctor" had been applied. And reading that is something that breaks the trance if they can get that far.

Tory Christman is another example. I believe that when she was confronted with the actions of the OSA "mafia", (as she calls it), that she had been lured into working for, she observed a blatant conflict with basic scientology principles. That with everything else finally shattered the "Truman Show" for her so she was ready when Andreas of www.xenu.net sent her a compassionate email.

Given these stories and others, I have the hypothesis that the reason people leave scientology is that they realize it is no longer actually scientology, and it isn't working.

A scientologist who hasn't left yet is still trying to make scientology work, and still thinks with the basics of it.

So to really get a scientologist to talk to you, if they are not disenchanted yet, you're gonna have to learn some basic scientology. And use it.

Why is that? One reason is that any scientologist is a sucker for scientology. They respond to it. After all, there they are, right? Another is that some of the basic understandings in scientology, for good or ill, do seem to be workable. Even if Hubbard was a lunatic.

My theory is this: You have to get them to directly compare their actual environment in scientology with the picture they have of scientology. And you can use some basic scientology and their knowledge of it to do that. You can get them talking to you and then, if it goes well, looking at scientology instead of reflexively defending it.

I would start with not invalidating them for being a scientologist. Just don't criticize them at all. When an church of scientology staff or OSA member harassing a picket line invalidates a critic they are actually violating scientology. They are using a form of black scientology. Don't respond in kind, communicate in the way scientology itself teaches!

One basic to use is the scientology concepts of affinity, reality and communication. In scientology this is known as ARC. It is an interesting concept.

The affinity point explains why you are more willing to talk with people you like.

The reality point explains why you have more to talk about with people who have similar ideas or experiences.

The communication point explains that it can increase both affinity and reality.

All this together is supposed to equal understanding.

Now, I don't care if this concept and its application REALLY works or not. Or who wrote it or invented it. The point is, a scientologist is trained on this, he lives it. It works for him. And if you use it when you are trying to get him to talk to you, it will work, because it works for HIM.

Find a reason to like this person. Be compassionate. Be willing to be near them, be willing to have them communicate. After all, it could have been you, once. Or still.

Figure out something that you can agree on, because in scientology, agreement equals reality. See if you can discuss things that you don't have in conflict. Baseball, the weather, how hard it is to get shoes that fit. Don't talk about the obvious things you have disagreement on, like Hubbard,  or "it isn't a religion."

If they insist on saying things you don't like, let them know that they aren't building much affinity. And that it is hard to communicate if they insist on doing that. If they assert things are true that you don't agree with, let them know that you don't have much reality with that and you would like to communicate about things you both agree with. If they try to invalidate you or try to introvert you, call them on it as a black use of scientology.

All these things are easier with family members or friends because you already have affinity and reality with them on things that don't involve Scientology.

If you feel that they are doing something, be upfront about it. Ask them if they are doing a dissem drill or some kind of handling? Tell them you want to really talk together, not be the subject of some "process." Have them tell you about what they were doing. Did it seem to be working? What did they think of your reactions? If they were going to continue, what would they do next? And then find out if there is anything they think you might both agree on?

Another tactic is for you to use the dissem drill. I think reversing this on a scientologist you want to talk with will pull them right into communication.

Use the help, control, communication, interest to draw them in. Use ARC to get them talking with you.

You can continue on in this line until you and the scientologist are on a good conversational friendly level. If you read "Dianetics 55" or "Problems of work" by Hubbard, these can give you an idea of the basics the scientologist works on. And give you something to talk about.

Let them know you are there to listen. And to help. Mention your own experiences, things you actually know to be fact. Saying things about what other people have said is, I think, a losing game. They can tune you out and justify doing it as "you are spreading lies." Because it is secondhand. But your own experience is powerful. It is you and your truth testifying.

If you take this approach, you will wind up in communication with your scientologist.

Then take to heart my other essay, "How to talk to a scientologist." I think you might both have a win. ;-)

Michael Leonard Tilse