From: Scott Chase (ecphoric@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri 27 Feb 2004 - 02:30:17 GMT
>From: Keith Henson <hkhenson@rogers.com>
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>Subject: RE: Is Freud contagious?
>Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:31:28 -0500
>
>At 11:46 AM 26/02/04 -0600, you wrote:
>>
>>Freud is a wonderful poet but a horrible scientist. I think there
>>is an article in Atlantic Monthly about how off-base and even
>>dishonest Freud was.
>
>I think Freud is fascinating from a meta viewpoint. *What* he said is not
>so interesting since it was pre-scientific bs, but the fact he started his
>own cult is.
>
>A few days ago there was a thread on this very subject:
>
>From: hkhenson@rogers.com (Keith Henson)
>Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
>Subject: Re: Neutral but worried party
>Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 01:13:32 GMT
>
>On 23 Feb 2004 11:47:30 -0800, ladayla <ladayla_member@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>
> >In article <403a0566.64166090@news2.lightlink.com>, Keith Henson says...>
> >
> >snip snip
> >
> >>It helps understand the problem (though it has not led to solutions)
> >>to consider scientology as a drug cartel. What cult involvement does
> >>is provide the members with intense attention. The attention causes
> >>the release of chemicals in the brain that are highly rewarding--to an
> >>overwhelming degree in some people.
> >>
> >>People in a cult situation will spend massive sums, dump families and
> >>ignore medical problems. The effect is much like drug addiction, and
> >>it is no wonder since the same brain reward circuits are being fired.
> >>
> >>http://www.vivaconsulting.com/education/hijacking.html
> >>
> >>Unfortunately, I don't know where to take this line of thought.
> >
> >It is one helluva interesting theory. I have given it some thought since
>you
> >first presented it here, and I have scanned the many scn'ists that I have
>known
> >and audited. There are several who unquestionably fit the desciption of
> >'auditing junkie'. Allen Kapuler comes to mind. We did a Dianetics course
> >together in @ 1958 and we were friends thru the years until his death @ 4
>yrs
> >ago. Allen would do anything to get auditing. He was audited up thru NOTs
>in the
> >church. At the same time, I was auditing him on NOTs in my little field
> >practice. He just couldn't get enough.
>
>Attention/reward theory certainly explains 'auditing junkies' and is
>consistent with a lot of otherwise mysterious facts. Consider
>psychoanalysis. People swear by it just like they do scientology
>auditing. Just like auditing, no controlled study of psychoanalysis
>has found it to have objective effects. (Other than emptying your
>wallet.) So why did psychoanalysis become a substantial part of
>medicine?
>
>Attention/reward theory accounts for it. Psychoanalysis has no
>*objective* support, but (like auditing) the subjective rewards to
>patients are high enough for them to pay plenty and most think it is
>worth the money. Of course the *money* rewards to the psychoanalysts
>is enough to warp *their* emotional opinions about the effectiveness
>of the "Freud cult" methods.
>
>(Psychoanalysis is a far less important aspect of medical practice
>than it was 50 years ago. In the face of persistent lack of evidence,
>the popularity of the "treatment" and the willingness of insurance
>companies to pay for it has been declining for decades.)
>
>The theory is also consistent with an "evolutionary psychology"
>approach. If you grant that primitive hominids had social systems
>with common features of primitive tribes and chimpanzee bands, then
>there was a good reason for attention (like you get in auditing or
>psychoanalysis) to be highly rewarding. Namely that attention is an
>indicator of higher status and higher status translated
>(statistically) into more offspring for males and better survival of
>offspring for females.
>
>Of course none of them, psychoanalysis, auditing, or addictive drugs
>is likely get you either improved access to women or more surviving
>children in the modern world. It must be noted that we didn't evolve
>in the modern world. You can't expect human psychology to be well
>fitted to the modern world. Evolution is slow and there has not been
>enough time for it to change our evolved psychological underpinnings.
>
> >( I turned his field folders in to the
> >cos after I had enuff of auditing him, and thought that he should be
>responsible
> >for his own case and audit himself. He was a Cl 6 or 8 auditor. I was
>very proud
> >of the work that I had done with him, and wanted cos to see that their
>'standard
> >tech' was being delivered standardly in the field). That's when i gave a
>damn
> >what they thought.
> >I think that the theory of endorphins in scn has merit, and would make
>for an
> >interesting study. I don't know where to take this line of thought
>either, but
> >it's worthy of pursuing.
>
>Your observation of the "auditing junkies" might be enough to do a
>reviewed paper on the subject. We should consider it, especially if
>you can think of a few other cases.
>
>
>
Which totally ignores my quote of Freud where he uses contagion and
imitation in the same breath. Freud was prescientific for psychology and
prescient for memes, if my quote from _Totem and Taboo_ amounts to anything.
Though flawed his system was an evolutionary psychology in his day. And he
did have a decent background in neuroanatomy before going batty in
psychoanalytic tangents.
_________________________________________________________________
Say “good-bye” to spam, viruses and pop-ups with MSN Premium -- free trial
offer! http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200359ave/direct/01/
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri 27 Feb 2004 - 02:40:30 GMT