Social Facts

March 8, 2007

For the first week, our group observed the Church of Scientology (CoS) forum on the Topix site. We chose this group partially because this organization is primarily based on trust. The CoS forum was significantly active with comments posted every hour on 4 or 5 topics.

We decided to actively participate in the group, and had a couple of specific goals.

• How many posters were members of CoS?
• Would a new member be welcome to the forum?
• Would the trust this member to join another group?

There are a small number of posters that are members of CoS, and there are more critics than members of CoS. Some members of this forum were not as friendly, and that is partly due to trust. The new member was not welcomed until after the leader of the critics acknowledged and welcomed, and this happened to a couple of other members, e.g. Freud, Anti-Ron, and Dermot. None of the Scientologists participated in our discussions; therefore, they did not trust this new member to join a group outside of Topix. There are no new memberships (i.e. “Scientologists for Obama” group).

We created a group “Scientologists for Obama” on the Barack Obama web site, and then introduced this group to the Topix forum using the identity of NanuNanu (there are no new members). The title of the discussion is “Presidential Campaign - Who are you voting for?” and it received 46 posts. In order to keep the discussion on the top of the list, the first 10 posts were made by our class group. We also had to participate in other discussions before the regular posters became involved in this discussion. There were a couple of critical moments of this discussion. The first was when Yogi and Rachel asked NanuNanu about being a Scientologist. The second was when L-Ron-Hubbard defined all the members of Topix, which is simplified in the chart below.

Scientologists	Critics	Skeptic
Neon*	L-Ron-Hubbard*	Yogi Bear*
Jess	Tic
John	Freud
Flic (inactive)	Rachel*
Dermot*	Alf
NanuNanu	Zin
	Jack Starkly*
	Kristi*
	Polly*
	Antony
	Barb

*Frequent posters on this forum.

I.

The first thing that stands out is that the number of critics outweigh the number of CoS members. Some of the more frequent posters have dedicated an enormous amount of time (e.g. 10-12 hours) and emotion to this forum (e.g. critics have bonded, some posts are dyadic because they address specific members). Most critics offer many resources and links about the background of Scientology, which begged the question “why?” What is in their interest that they post? Are they Ex-Scientologists, and want to warn people about Scientology? Or, are they psychologists who want to voice their opinion? Or are critics trying to persuade Scientologists to convert out of their practice?

NanuNanu asked this question on the forum. Only L-Ron-Hubbard responded by admitting he was not affiliated to psychologists, and offered genuine advice.

“Nanu, how long have you been in? Be very careful, if hearing these things unsettles you I suspect you are very new. There's not much in the way of arguing here anymore, because the scientologists have pretty much disappeared. I consider the COS a brainwashing, money-making, evil organization that lies to and ruthlessly exploits people. Don't take my word for it or anything though, take advantage of the internet. Read both sides, and decide for yourself. If you have specific questions, I'll answer as best I can. I'm not affiliated with the mental health profession, though some of the critics are. I can't reach a person deeply emerged in the cult(and they get sucked in fast), so it's more about warning others. Take care.”

L-Ron-Hubbard later sources three links regarding the negativity of Scientology. In his final post on this discussion, he suggests that he is “trying to make the world a better place.”

“This place can be noisy sometimes, but seems to be going through a lull right now. I am a critic, so I will steer you more towards critical information. Keep that in mind when dealing with me, ok? Scientology doesn't want you to look at both sides, but I do. I trust you'll figure out the truth without much help from me, but I'll help if you ask me to. Your friends at work seem to understand on some level. The fear of slander,lawsuits, private detectives, etc stems from the churches 'fair game' policy, which remains in effect despite denials.

http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html

If you allow yourself to be sucked in, you'll start believing that all the bad press, angry ex-members, overwhelmingly bad public opinion, etc, are all the work of a few bad people and nothing will convince you otherwise. Ultimately, this is your decision to make. This (admittedly opinionated) Time magazine article should be a good starting point from a critical perspective. It was a cover story in 1991.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9...

I don't kid myself. I know my ability to get them out is seriously hampered by, IMHO, brainwashing. Many (if not most) of Scientology's critics are ex-members, but I am not. The only ex-member critic on this forum would be Polly. So why do I do this? I became interested when South Park did an episode that called the COS a 'big, fat, global scam.' You can legally download the episode here, or get it in a different format using Limewire or whatever.

http://www.hedning.no/humor/southpark/southpa...

I did over a year of reading before I posted a comment, staying silent for fear of 'fair game' as linked to above. Why does anyone do anything for anyone? I don't know. This is just my way of trying to make the world a better place. I'm taking this slowly so as not to overwhelm you with information. The things I'm holding back could fill a encyclopedia, but I think I've given you enough material to at least start out with. Take care.”

The reason why critics participate in this forum is because they get a sense of satisfaction when they become a valuable resource. Avid posters are rewarded with popularity, which are reflected in some posts when they are personally addressed. Validation from other members keeps posters posting. Topix makes it easy to address a comment from a specific poster by clicking on the “reply” link. For example, Yogi Bear, joined Topix on January 5, 2007, and has made 1108 comments. Rachel sides with Yogi Bear.

“But you failed to answer Yogi's question. Are you a Scientologist?”

Topix rewards avid posters by keeping this information visible next to each post. Also most recent posters are shown in the index of all threads, which facilitate conversation. Membership with Topix eases posting by organizing most recently commented threads of interest, and it keeps track of posts after you post. For instance, in NanuNanu’s profile page, it will say that there have been 3 posts after your post on “X” thread, and to press a link to see these comments directly.

Clearly, this group of Scientologists and critics are emotionally connected. When looking at the index of discussions, there are approximately 542 threads. Perhaps, this forum reflects a “shared repository for group memory” (Etech, April 2003), which helps the bond get stickier. People on both sides tend to be respectful of each other’s views. When Dermot (CoS member) started a thread on “I must take my leave” from Topix, the salutation, “Dear Loyal Readers,” has an emotional tone.

“I also have made some connections with you guys believe it or not...I mean Jack, Zini, Polly, TIC, Ronnie, Rachel and the others. I completely get your views.”

Dermot has bonded with Jack, Zini, Polly, TIC, Ronnie, and Rachel, who are all critics. Most of the addressed posted their farewells to Dermot. Recently, members of CoS diminished. In other threads like “Where Have All The Scientologists Gone” and “Other Forums,” critics express apologies.

“Jess, if you read this, I am very sorry I resorted to insulting you. I let my emotions get the best of me and I do feel bad for it. If we had met under different circumstances, I would have given you my e-mail address so we could talk (if you were interested). I even almost did give you my email address, but I have to admit all the information out there about smear tactics and harrassment stopped me. I am sure I am way to little a pea for scientologists to worry about, but better safe than sorry.”

Krysti

The critics are curious why members of CoS have left the forum, and they are researching other forums to join on the same topic of Scientology, like Operation Clambake and Beliefnet.

Here is the link to the belief.net scientology debate forum.

http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/discussion_li...

Let me know if you guys are going to go over there...

Krysti

Last, “the identification and vilification of external enemies” will cause a group to “galvanize” (Bion, Etech). This is true in this forum. The Church of Scientology is the external enemy, and without it, the group has lost some momentum. Since the Scientologists have left the forum, the group discussions are now about the memories of these CoS members, analysis of coordination of their leave, and searching for new forums that discuss CoS.

II.

The use of pseudonymous identities was particularly advantageous to critics. Critics were aware of CoS’ reputation of practicing “fair game” policy, in which they can evoke “fear of slander, lawsuits, and private detectives” to punish outsiders and ex-members of CoS. It took L-Ron-Hubbard a year of observation and research to finally post because of the “fair game” policy. There is no way to contact a Topix member without broadcasting your email address on the forum. This gives some security to critics of CoS to post. Although, there was some speculation that members of CoS have somehow gotten hold of each other’s email addresses to coordinate the leave (“Where Have All The Scientologists Gone?” thread).

“1- I know Jess and Dermot were communicating via e-mail as there was a mention of it several weeks ago, so yes, agreed.”

To give validity to pseudonymous identities, all posters must state their location. In addition to this information, some members display their IP address. In Topix, members of the forum are indicated with green, and allowed a graphic avatar.

Groups rely on trust and pseudonymous identities take away trust. On one thread, the critics discussed who they thought were real members of Scientology. The disadvantage to pseudonymous identities is that members who question other members’ identities will not get a straight answer. Consider this debate, where critics were not sure if Jess was a real Scientologist, and if Dermot was the leader of the pack.

“I have to admit that I didn't really believe the story Jess told, and her disappearance was rather abrupt. Who thinks she was an honest poster here? Who thinks she was OSA? Does anyone believe the story D told about his family be harassed? I suspect Flik got IP banned. John probably just couldn't take the heat here. Canuck is still around, but he's not part of the official COS. Let the discussion begin. It might be the last really interesting one on this forum.”

L-Ron-Hubbard

“I still believe Jess's story!:-) Maybe I just have too soft a heart or can be naive in some areas, who knows! I certainly NEVER would have believed what scientology was about if I hadn't read so much about it myself.

The whole thing with Dermot definitely led, one way or another, to the disappearance of the others in my opinion.”

Krysti

III.

Before actively posting to this group and being introduced to Stickam, I was going to suggest having a webcams to reveal the poster’s identity. But after engaging in this discussion, and reading about CoS’ “fair game” policy and L-Ron-Hubbard’s reluctance in joining the Scientology discussion, I retract this suggestion because it will drive critics away. As it stands, the current model drove the CoS members away, and kept the critics.

Instead, I would add a feature that members of Topix could contact other members, and they must be accepted in order to exchange personal information (i.e. Linkedin protocol). Hopefully, this would bring members of CoS back to the forum, and allow dyadic relationships to form in the group. I get the sense that members of CoS felt like they were out numbered by the critics in their debates. Promoting dyadic relationships in the group would provide support for CoS members. In lieu of this suggestion, and bring the Scientology members back to the forum, I would like to see how the critics treat them, partly because so many expressed remorse for their heated debates. I wonder if the tone of their comments would change or if they would suppress their thoughts. The downside to adding dyadic relationships is that maybe the group would be less accepting of new members.

Another change I imagined is revealing the NanuNanu’s identity. Currently, she is a “newly converted Scientologist.” I wonder if the group would ostracize NanuNanu if she came clean, saying she wasn’t a Scientologist, and her posts were mostly for research. I believe maybe this scandal would attract many members of CoS back to this forum. Or maybe she would get kicked out of the forum. This change would remind me of a television show “Black & White,” where an African-American family and a Caucasian family changed races entirely with make-up and prosthetics. The daughter of the Caucasian family had joined a rap/poetry group as an African-American, but she didn’t quite fit in. The members in her group couldn’t understand why, until she revealed that she was Caucasian. At first, the members in her group were upset, but over time, they accepted her into their group. Would this change in Scientology (digital, mediated communication) follow the same protocol?

IV.

Mediated-online communication reduces the stress of coordinating face-to-face meeting. Our group worked effectively together. We used email and iChat for communicating. In the beginning when we were brainstorming on what groups to observe, there was a little tension using email due to the lack of immediacy. Specifically, when one member emailed the group, the other members might not have had Internet access. It wasn’t until we all agreed to meet up on iChat that things began rolling. Even though Nick and I worked physically in the same room, we still chatted online with Lisa. Suggestions and responses were immediate on iChat, and we could multi-task while on iChat. For instance, while we chatted online, we also shared links that we could pull up immediately. Our chat lasted approximately an hour, and we never used iChat again. The actual analysis was emailed to the group.

When we decided to participate in the Topix forum, it seemed almost the same speed as iChat. While I posted as a member, Lisa and Nick posted anonymously to keep the topic high on the index of threads. At one point, when NanuNanu was she a Scientologist, I remember emailing my group to get feedback on which response I should post, and that felt like a lag, since we converted from posting onto the forum to email communication.

Every member in the group was proactive. For example, when I created the “Scientology For Obama” group, and sent the links out, Lisa signed up as a member right away. Since we all agreed on the topic of Scientology, there was a motivation to actively participate. Overall, this group experience was one of the more positive group projects I’ve engaged in.