As an example Cialdini’s book Influence includes Theory of influence. Cialdini’s theory of influence is based on six key principles: reciprocity, commitment and consistency, social proof, authority, liking, scarcity. He later added click -whirr .

In hypnosis the principles of consistency. Social proof, commitment, authority, scarcity and click-whirr and reciprocity ALL come into play. Did the people that developed hypnosis understand this, or understand it fully, probably not. But if there methods despite flawed and at times incorrect theories used the natural vulnerabilities to these methods then they would be caused to be effective due to them.

It’s kind of like if an archer practices firing his bow and prays. He also tries arching his shots for more distance. He also tries shooting from horseback while riding. He also tries shooting moving targets. He also hunts animals while using his bow, both on foot and horseback. He also meditates and uses visualization and ceremonies.

He could become a much better, even expert archer. We can say all the practice and learning different techniques is why he is a master archer capable of performing in a variety of situations.

He could sincerely believe the prayer and ceremonies etc are part of his success. He to us is wrong.

That’s similar to hypnosis to a degree. A hypnotist may succeed to a degree because of factors he doesn’t understand. I think it’s even more true for a cult leader as social aspects play a larger part.

Hubbard, like the superstitious archer may have persuaded people not due to his self perceived genius but due to psychological factors he barely glimpsed small bits of. Maybe I am being too cynical, but he never fully understood what he was doing.

I think a serious and extensive study for all cults which zeroes in on Scientology in particular is needed. It has to look at the overlap between the ideas identified by Robert Cialdini’s book Influence, Lifton’s eight criteria for thought reform, Singer’s six conditions for thought reform, the BITE model by Steve Hassan, Festinger’s A Theory Of Cognitive Dissonance and classic rhetoric including ethos, logos, pathos and sublime writing as well as propaganda techniques in general.

Hubbard’s methods borrowed from much of this or used it from hypnosis without awareness of the information psychology would later gather on them through more scientific research.

Incidentally, with Hubbard I think there’s no truth so even slight persuasion was superior to no truth.

I realized very quickly in coming out of Scientology that much of the ideas that we use on the mind like psychological defense mechanisms, narcissism, sociopathy, projection, cognitive dissonance and many, many others are metaphors and without scientific evidence of corresponding structures and physical processes, like photosynthesis or breathing etc. they are highly subjective.

We have ideas that are similar but not identical on such things even down to terms like thought, remember, certain and many others.

In developing psychology the pattern of partners having disagreements and branching off exists in part because they have different underlying assumptions on things like thought, memory and imagination.

I understand that if I read a book by Festinger or Shaw or Atack or Singer that they all have different opinions on the unobserved portion of the mind.

That’s why I call it metaphors of the mind. Hypnosis has dealt with the observable in behavior and certain mental and physiological effects but without a lot of advancement in technology deals very much with the unobserved and hence metaphors.

Language on narcissism deals with many, many metaphors on the narcissist living to see a beautiful reflection of himself in the world and a hall of distorted mirrors in its mind and I could go on and on. It’s a language of metaphors.

I have written a lot about the ideas and terms in persuasion related to persuasion and influence within rhetoric that aren’t supported by actual physical structures that can be observed like nerves, regions of the brain and cells all being best understood as metaphors of the mind.

Even simple terms like thought and imagination reflect functions that in theory involve structures and without a thorough proof of the structures and how they function we are actually using metaphors.

Metaphors are stories without solid observable and verifiable scientific evidence. Most of the time we don’t make such a fine distinction because it is not natural to the majority of our thinking.

Hypnosis is several things. It is a subject. I understand creationism is a subject and philosophy. My understanding of that fact is not related to my personal lack of belief in the concept.

Similarly hypnosis is a subject that Hubbard took hundreds of ideas from. I believe he sincerely believed in the subject. Not as a therapy, but as a way to covertly control and enslave people.

The subject as it is described in many schools of hypnosis is not scientifically validated and in many has superstitious and unproven and unprovable claims. Anytime someone says ALL minds work exactly the same way with little or no evidence I know they are not using valid science. We ain’t all the same.

The point isn’t is hypnosis 100% valid or even does it work as Hubbard thought. It’s that he tried to use it and took hundreds of ideas from it to create Dianetics and Scientology auditing and indoctrination.

The ideas, in combination with other things he had cult members do, produced the results the Scientologists experienced. I don’t think they were beneficial results.

I believe that due to psychological factors that sometimes, some methods used by hypnotists work as persuasion, but not necessarily for the reasons they believe or to the degree they believe.

It comes down to theory doesn’t have to be correct for applications to produce results. I don’t have to understand fire to use matches. I don’t have to understand mechanics to drive a car. I don’t have to understand physics to fly or even make a plane that flys.

Similarly, a hypnotist doesn’t need to understand the mind to persuade someone. They can do something that is persuasive despite having no theory or a false theory or an error filled theory.

That is part of the binary reaction hypnosis gets. People ignore the success it has had in persuasion and that is an error. It doesn’t have to be proven that it is a science identical to engineering or chemistry or physics to have a real place in cultic studies because cults successfully use it and Scientology in particular is based off it.

There is a lesson to take forward here folks: Actions speak louder than words. And just because you have the SAME ENEMY makes you comrades in arms, NOT FRIENDS or even FELLOW TRAVELLERS.
The desire to lick this jerk’s feet when he never, ever said anything that did play in his favour (with the arguable exception (I was pretty convinced for a fortnight or so, I must admit) of saying Hubbard was a liar)

Rathbun was NEVER willing to give up this info in the service of saving his fellow Scilons. He will, however use it now to try and protect the Master to his sputtering, semi-tumescent, dribbling.. pathetic.. Blaster.

* (erm, the term is not “enforcer”, Tony. According to Marty, it was “WARRIOR”. I prefer Thug, or Toady.)

I think we have come a lot closer here. My view is that Hubbard had an overriding need for control. the degree of control he wanted was impossible, and he certainly didn’t have the intellect to achieve this by manipulation (although he was a good face-to-face con men).

That ability enabled him to con a small group of people – the editor of “Astounding Science Fiction” and his circle – who gave his career as a guru a considerable jump start by promoting dianetics.

This enabled him to draw in a population of talented (but credulous) people who were wiling to serve ‘the great man’. They kept the organisation running, provided Guinea pigs, and added ideas to those he picked up which he thought would appeal to popular culture.

Basically, he threw a lot of shit against the wall, and built on the bit that stuck.

However, I do have a problem with ‘hypnosis’ as an explanation for Scientology – except as a metaphor for a larger process of psychological manipulation. Also, I think that social pressures which emerged from the situation explain a lot about Scientology.

I am not saying he was a mastermind or a sane mind. I accept that he believed that he was and his followers certainly do.

I am very convinced Hubbard didn’t understand persuasion and believed quite a bit that wasn’t true. But he plagiarized so many ideas from so many sources that some due to whatever combination of reasons achived some success.

He had an incredibly low success rate and a heck of a time retaining people. But of a small percentage that he did retain he had a tremendous effect on them.

If his understanding of persuasion was better his success rate would have been as well. So, though he tried to have a covert hypnosis based thought reform program it failed far, far more than it succeeded.

He tried to use information he pursued for decades but never found. Perhaps his initial idea that hypnosis would be the beginning and end of the subject was a fundamental flaw in the foundation of his efforts.

I don’t think anyone has ever achieved the degree of success at persuasion Hubbard desired through hypnosis. If they did, Hubbard never found their methods.

I think the whole subject involves too many maybes for most people. Some people are successfully persuaded by hypnosis and most aren’t. Some hypnotists are good and in my opinion almost everyone is not a good hypnotist and even fewer are great.

It’s incredibly difficult to evaluate scientifically because you actually need to duplicate the quality of the hypnotist. That’s impossible.

It’s like trying to do an experiment requiring an artist or comedian and reproducing the results.

Perhaps experiments with highly hypnotizable people and moderately skilled hypnotists using the exact same rooms, commands, eye contact, body language etc. can be attempted to duplicate results, but variables still exist.

Hubbard’s unscientific approach didn’t recognize the limits of his lone analysis of hypnosis. He just never respected scientific research or the opinions of others.

I think even more scientific minds tried to understand hypnosis with better methods of analysis and never found the truth. I should say far brighter minds and much, much better research methods have been used regarding hypnosis and not adequately resolved major questions on the subject.

So, I certainly don’t see Hubbard as a mastermind as much as a prolific plagiarist and one that gleened a tiny bit on hypnosis above his usual Reader’s Digest education on other subjects. Really he stuck with whatever got any desirable results without understanding why.

His hypnotic theories probably would be described as having the tiniest sliver of success to back unscientific notions. The rarely found successful method was used over and over. Hubbard tried hundreds of hypnotic techniques and repackaged them as therapy. His audacity was astounding.

He tried and tried ideas and occasionally through whatever methods found something he considered successful and used it again and again.

Through extensive trial and blunders he came upon a combination of methods that worked some of the time. But I think never in ways he fully understood. And never to the degree Hubbard wanted.

I must confess to having fallen for that brand of bullshit a time or twenty.

I try to be a bit more skeptical and cautious now.

I put it in inverted commas because people who formulate fringe ideas often take the view that the older an idea is, the more true it must be – the exact opposite to the notion of progress. You get a lot of ancient master giving advice, too.