Superficial due to lack of reseach, and lack of laying out the details. Horribly poor public investment in the Eileen Barker's of academia. Horrible lack of details. Example: I was a training supervisor in the Scientology movement, then a "scribe", then I did projects studying the Scientology/Hubbard writings in extensive detail. There, still, today, is NO academic in depth study of the details of TR-3 and TR-7, which are core training exercises used in training Scientology practitioners. Those two training exercises are DIRECTLY relevant to Scientology's overbearing preemptive "control" over their "parishioners" when the parishioners are undergoing the quack pseudo-therapy (spiritual counseling Scientology claims its quack therapy is spiritual counseling), but the TR-3 and TR-7 exercises trains in a presumptive "right" of the Scientology practitioners to lay their hands on their followers and physically prevent them from escaping in the moment, from undergoing Scientology's quack therapy. The details of WHY Scientologists get away with violating their members normal rights, is IN THE DETAILS of the Scientology practitioners' procedures. And not a damned academic is willing to get into the damned "religious" "spiritual counseling" details and the tame apologist academics like Eileen who claims she's "neutral" not a one in Eileen's care and mentorship would I consider no better than an obstruction and a public denier and preventor of SOMEHOW getting into the damned pudding and study the damned details of Scientology cult, for one. --- Chuck Beatty, ex Scientology cult "Sea Org" staffer, 1975-2003, chuckbeatty77@aol.com
Sociologists study the relationship between the individual and society - the minutiae of individual NRM practice is not of massive interest. If you think something "controls" individuals, it sounds like you need to do psychological research on that issue, not sociological.
@@stewartellinson8846 Who studies a "new religion's" spiritual procedures (rituals)? Psychologists? Surely the sociologists who study new religions who fail to study the rituals, and see if the rituals influence the new religion's members in any way wouldn't that be a sociologist's possible interest. Its unfathomable that no in all these years, the Hubbard Scientology procedures and Hubbard's scriptures relevant to the Scientology rituals being carried out in a particular way, would be dissected. Is that even academia's job? Who studies religions and religious practices?
@@chuckbeattyo the minutiae of religion is more of a psychological thing because it's behaviour on a personal level (Psychology is mind & behaviour). Sociology does the big picture - how society works etc.
Cults would show as much for outsiders as they willing to share them in order to support their propaganda as this woman does. Ex-members are important links and shouldn't be ignored. However, I do think - as an ex JW - that everyone has personal responsibility is their life. Narrowing it down for the cult members only, that is called victim blaming. I'm just wondering how many cult-sponsored conferences she participated (all expenses paid)? All she saw is the grease through a pink glasses what cults want them to see and then praise them. Like doctors who are supported by certain drug companies in order to advertise their products.
I like the interview style and Sin City colour scheme :D
Superficial due to lack of reseach, and lack of laying out the details. Horribly poor public investment in the Eileen Barker's of academia. Horrible lack of details. Example: I was a training supervisor in the Scientology movement, then a "scribe", then I did projects studying the Scientology/Hubbard writings in extensive detail. There, still, today, is NO academic in depth study of the details of TR-3 and TR-7, which are core training exercises used in training Scientology practitioners. Those two training exercises are DIRECTLY relevant to Scientology's overbearing preemptive "control" over their "parishioners" when the parishioners are undergoing the quack pseudo-therapy (spiritual counseling Scientology claims its quack therapy is spiritual counseling), but the TR-3 and TR-7 exercises trains in a presumptive "right" of the Scientology practitioners to lay their hands on their followers and physically prevent them from escaping in the moment, from undergoing Scientology's quack therapy. The details of WHY Scientologists get away with violating their members normal rights, is IN THE DETAILS of the Scientology practitioners' procedures. And not a damned academic is willing to get into the damned "religious" "spiritual counseling" details and the tame apologist academics like Eileen who claims she's "neutral" not a one in Eileen's care and mentorship would I consider no better than an obstruction and a public denier and preventor of SOMEHOW getting into the damned pudding and study the damned details of Scientology cult, for one. --- Chuck Beatty, ex Scientology cult "Sea Org" staffer, 1975-2003, chuckbeatty77@aol.com
Sociologists study the relationship between the individual and society - the minutiae of individual NRM practice is not of massive interest. If you think something "controls" individuals, it sounds like you need to do psychological research on that issue, not sociological.
@@stewartellinson8846 Who studies a "new religion's" spiritual procedures (rituals)?
Psychologists? Surely the sociologists who study new religions who fail to study the rituals, and see if the rituals influence the new religion's members in any way wouldn't that be a sociologist's possible interest.
Its unfathomable that no in all these years, the Hubbard Scientology procedures and Hubbard's scriptures relevant to the Scientology rituals being carried out in a particular way, would be dissected.
Is that even academia's job? Who studies religions and religious practices?
@@chuckbeattyo the minutiae of religion is more of a psychological thing because it's behaviour on a personal level (Psychology is mind & behaviour). Sociology does the big picture - how society works etc.
Think this is great too! Great interview and great lighting (big respect for this factor!).
Cults would show as much for outsiders as they willing to share them in order to support their propaganda as this woman does. Ex-members are important links and shouldn't be ignored. However, I do think - as an ex JW - that everyone has personal responsibility is their life. Narrowing it down for the cult members only, that is called victim blaming.
I'm just wondering how many cult-sponsored conferences she participated (all expenses paid)? All she saw is the grease through a pink glasses what cults want them to see and then praise them. Like doctors who are supported by certain drug companies in order to advertise their products.