"Scientology indoctrination usually begins with the communication Course Training Routines or "TRs". These are supposed to enhance the ability to communicate, but have been called by one expert "the most overt form of hypnosis used by any destructive cult". Who was that "one expert"?
Could it be Steven Hassan? From http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/atack-freedom-trap.html#part28 Also referred here: http://www.garloff.de/kurt/sekten/mind1.html
Can't help a small derail, 'cause I find this so very true: http://www.garloff.de/kurt/sekten/mind1.html
^^ I agree but I am not an expert. I would be very interested in who this expert was. Jon Atack quoted it in the Total Freedom Trap but nobody can track down who this expert was. As for the Training Routines, it could easily be argued that they contain hypnotic elements. I don't see how staring at somebody unblinking for half an hour is helping to be in communication with them, but it needs a recognised expert to come out and claim it is hypnosis to have people sit up and take notice.
This doesn't address the TR's directly, but talks about how auditing induces a hypnotic state. Dangerous Persuaders, e-book, 2007, p26-27 Not sure what the ultradian rhythm is, but the TR's sound to me like a similar attempt to wear down the person's ability to do critical thinking.
Since Atack's book was published in 1992, just by date alone the previously popular works that I would guess as being the logical candidates for that time frame would of been these: Religion Inc. by Stewart Lamont, 1986 Scientology: To Be Perfectly Clear by Stark Rodney & Bainbridge 1985 Or Roy Wallis' book & articles from late 1970s to early 80s.
None of the above are likely. The word "Scientology" was censored out of Singer's next-to-last book, and neither her nor Lifton went deep enough into the actual hands-on Scientology practices to actually mention TRs. They were more on the cult recovery (after the fact) side of things, and Ross never published any of his own original studies that would of qualified him as an "expert" rather than counselor/deprogrammer.
^ Yeah. I latched onto the destructive cult term; thinking who would use that. I know Ross throws that around alot. What about that Canadian academic? (forgot his name) Too bad Singers' years of research material was apparently destroyed so the scilons couldn't get their hands on it after her death. I know she had a huge file on a certain individual which would have completed my collection.
Probably too early for Kent, and he's a sociologist so it's not likely details on the TR practice are in his spectrum. That is far more likely a fit for religious studies scholars like the ones I listed upstream ITT who were the only ones of the time period to dig in deep on the actual teachings, or experts in the other social sciences (psychiatry/psychology).
We're focusing on a written quote when Atack could just as easily have spoken to an expert and quoted unwritten words.
It was a huge omission to leave out the identity of that expert or to use it as a quote if he did not know the identity of the expert.
<Atack> Can I quote what you just said in an article? <Expert> If you don't use my name, sure. <Atack> But people might think it's a huge omission looking back on it in 20+ years. <Expert> Who gives a fuck about people in 20 years?
