A Scientologist, a true believer, lives in continual cognitive dissonance. When faced with a dangerous question challenging their beliefs, they resort to all kinds of mental and debate tricks to avoid having their belief bubble bursted.
Our resident Ninja, Katageek summed it all up in a nice algorithm:
- Change the subject, write a bunch and pretend you answered the question and IGNORE THE DANGEROUS QUESTION.
- If that doesn’t work, blame the fault on the questioner in a loving attitude and help him/her find the mistake they have made that doesn’t let them see “the truth” AND IGNORE THE DANGEROUS QUESTION.
- If that doesn’t work, blame the questioner in a HARSH condescending attitude for moral or logical flaws and IGNORE THE DANGEROUS QUESTION.
- If that doesn’t work, re-define the terms so that the question no longer has any bite AND USE THAT REFRAMING TO IGNORE THE DANGEROUS QUESTION.
- If that doesn’t work, FACE THE DANGEROUS QUESTION but minimize it as unimportant in the big picture (EXAMPLE: “LRH wasn’t perfect but his tech is workable”).
- If that doesn’t work, keep bouncing between these options and never acknowledge the question or its actual ramifications.
- When the period is over, go warm up to a source that confirms the core beliefs and let the damage bar on your brain’s screen recharge, and then return to the conversation and START ALL OVER.
- If EVER you have to face a dangerous question AND what it actually means regarding a sacred belief, always return to your “wins” about how it worked for you. Nobody can touch that.
- Be unconscious that your belief stays the same and that you shift criteria based on what group or person is saying that either supports or detracts from the core belief. EXAMPLE: When talking with hard core believers, you believe some facts as literal, but when talking with critics or liberal believers ONE CHANGES BELIEFS TEMPORARILY TO PROTECT THE CORE BELIEFS AND NOT REMEMBER THAT YOU FLIP-FLOPPED.