You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Anarchist to Abolitionist: A Bad Quaker's Journey
I don't know if you have read [this book](Science_of_Survival._Prediction_of_Human_Behavior (1).pdf)
Hmm, try putting the link in a url bar.
But I'm certain you have heard of the author, though may be not his active hatred of psychiatrists and gov'ts.
It looks like the link is missing the site where the file is hosted.
Yeah, that midget usurper is serious about his takedown notices, Ron was too.
If their primary goal was helping the world, they would give the tech away for free, imo.
The link still downloads a pdf to my tablet.
This one wants you to sign in to get the whole book.
https://archive.org/details/scienceofsurviva00lron_0/page/n5
I'm surprised they have it.
For sure, stss.nl has it, but you have to search in books.
https://stss.nl/materials/#
Science of Survival
I haven't seen many in the used bookstores.
If you find one, check that it still has the pull out chart.
The thing I've found about the entire subject is that if you don't get 'it', whatever you need for happiness, you won't find it here, either.
I wasn't looking for that when i went in, but i sure had it after.
'Cause nothing that is difficult for another to experience.'
Took a while for that to sink in, but i did get it.
It appears that the org never read that line.
So it's a Scientology text? I think I found a functional link. However, I do not have a good opinion of Scientology.
Yes, absolutely, Scientology.
Don't get me wrong, not suggesting joining the cult, just looking for an opinion on the tech.
If you haven't read the material, it won't be your honest evaluation of the material, but second hand opinions repeated.
My interactions with actual members is limited.
What I saw I didn't like.
Others, coming out after years inside, don't like the cult, either.
But, what I have yet to hear, despite two decades of looking, is a refutation of the tech.
All the tell-alls address personalities, not the efficacy of the techniques.
I came away a better person for having read the material, but, for the life of me, I haven't found one person willing to do the reading to offer a valid opinion.
I have had reports from some that had the tech forced upon them, but that is hardly comparable to an open minded evaluation.
So, if you do take the time, please let me know what you think of it.
If you would rather not, i would still like to hear you opinion, and how you reached it.
I couldn't agree more regarding scientoogy, however I suspect all three of us here posting strongly agree with their aversion to psychiatry. The enemy of my enemy, and all that.
The enemy of my enemy may well be another enemy. And Thomas Szasz was a pretty decent psychiatrist.
I actually quite agree with your comment regarding enemies, but in this context I was simply pointing out that the CCHR might provide useful information due to their work on the matter.
I don't know Szasz, so can't comment. The further psychiatry gets from just helping people understand the lies they've believed and how to cope with that, the further it strays from reason, IMHO. Were it built on neurology it would have a firmer basis in fact, but there's a lot of speculation and fantasy that is firmly established as 'science' in the field, which really causes a lot of harm to people on the ground.
We have a very limited grasp of how the brain works, despite the immense progress we've made, because biological systems are massively complex and we simply have a long way to go to be able to grasp the facts. We've only begun to scratch the surface, but psychiatry is filled to bursting with delusional buffoons that think - or at least claim - to knew precisely how our minds should work, why they aren't, and what to do about it. Hubris and vain puffery for ginormous paychecks isn't limited to psychiatry, but it's sure strongly featured by the practitioners thereof.