A jargon-laden repackaging of Freudian psychoanalysis combined with a non-falsifiable philosophy; and this somehow results in religion? I don’t think so…

Summary: The book begins with a number of exalted claims about the efficacy of Dianetic therapy. It then proceeds to lay out the underlying ideology/philosophy of Dianetics, "The goal of life can be considered to be infinite survival. Man, as a life form, can be demonstrated to obey in all his actions and purposes the one command: "Survive!"" (p. 34). The reason this is a philosophy and not a scientific theory or theology (or fact, as Hubbard would claim) is because: (1) it is non-falsifiable, which scientific theories must be; and (2) it does not relate to the supernatural, which theology does. Thus, the underlying idea driving Dianetics is not a scientific theory nor a theology, but a philosophy

Once the underlying philosophy of Dianetics is presented, the author proceeds to outline the concepts of Dianetecs. Basically, the goal of Dianetics is to make people ‘Clears’ (p. 27 ). Clears, according to Hubbard, are, for all intents and purposes, perfect. They have absolute control over their minds; they never get sick; they don’t make mistakes; they have no psychosomatic disorders; and they can recall anything and everything from their memory. But the real kicker is that they no longer have any engrams. Engrams are, according to Hubbard, "…the single and sole source of aberration and psychosomatic illness… In "normal people," in the neurotic and insane, the removal of these engrams wholly or in part, without other therapy, has uniformly brought about a state greatly superior to the current norm. No need was found for any theory or therapy other than those given in this book for the treatment of all psychic or psychosomatic ills" (p. 102). In other words, in order to become a Clear you must undergo Dianetic therapy (called ‘auditing’) to remove your engrams.

The explanation of the concepts involved in Dianetic therapy takes up the middle portion of the book. The last section of the book explains the process of Dianetic therapy or ‘auditing.’ The book seems designed to serve both as an introduction to Dianetics as a philosophy and therapy but also as a guide book to the individuals that serve as ‘auditors’ (a.k.a. therapists). In the version of the book I have, there is also a brief history of Dianetics, which is inaccurate, along with a glossary of Dianetics terminology, which is unfortunately necessary.

Comments: This is an all around terrible book. It has no redeeming qualities. I am not an advocate of banning books for publication, though this one is certainly a worthy candidate. But because I believe most people can make sound decisions when presented with the evidence, I recommend that all future publications of this book contain a warning label that reads:

Real scientific advancements since the publication of this book have illustrated that L. Ron Hubbard had no idea what he was talking about. There is no sound scientific basis for any of the claims made by L. Ron Hubbard. This book should be read primarily as a historical novelty rather than as a guidebook for mental health. Engage in Dianetic Therapy at your own risk. You have been warned!

So, what is wrong with this book? Where to start…

Science If someone has to claim he is doing ‘science’ as often as Hubbard does in Dianetics (a book which has not 1 single scientific reference, mind you), you can rest assured it isn’t science. I think my favorite quote comes from p. 78, "These are scientific facts. They compare invariably with observed experience." Hubbard repeats this claim innumerable times throughout the text (for just a few examples, see pages: 12, 49, 82-83, 154, 190, 194-195, 196). So just what are these ‘scientific facts’ that Hubbard claims? Here’s a good one:

A society which suppresses sex as evil and which is so aberrated that any member of it will attempt an abortion is a society which is dooming itself to ever-rising insanity. For it is a scientific fact that abortion attempts are the most important factor in aberration. The child on whom the abortion is attempted is condemned to live with murderers whom he reactively knows to be murderers through all his weak and helpless youth! (pp. 194-195)

Basically what Hubbard is claiming here is that a fetus that happens to survive an abortion attempt (which is an absurd proposition today considering the methodology used in abortion), will be scarred emotionally and psychologically for the rest of his/her life. Hubbard uses examples of women drinking acids or using copper coat hangers to perform abortions. While I would agree that the use of bizarre, unconventional methods of abortion may result in physiologically damaged children (which may or may not impair them psychologically), current, approved forms of abortion result in no children (that is, really, the point…). As I’ll discuss in more detail below, I think Hubbard’s views on abortion may be the result of a pet-peeve Hubbard dropped into his philosophy because he had a personal experience with it.

Another of Hubbard’s ridiculous ‘scientific’ claims is that Dianetics is the cure-all for pretty much everything, ranging from the common cold to cancer and arthritis,

Arthritis, dermatitis, allergies, asthma, some coronary difficulties, eye trouble, bursitis, ulcers, sinusitis, etc., form a very small section of the psychosomatic catalog. Bizarre aches and pains in various portions of the body are generally psychosomatic. Migraine headaches are psychosomatic and, with the others, are uniformly cured by Dianetic therapy. (And the word cured is used in its fullest sense.) Just how many physical errors are psychosomatic depends upon how many conditions the body can generate out of the factors in the engrams. For example, the common cold has been found to be psychosomatic. Clears do not get colds. (p. 135)

Any even mildly informed individual will recognize these claims for what they are – absolutely false. Each of the above has been shown to be related to very specific things, none of which have to do with psychosomatic problems or engrams (though, admittedly, ulcers can be exacerbated by stress…). Dianetics, pure and simple, is not a science. Without empirical evidence to back up the claims made in this book, this is nothing more than philosophy and quackery. Dianetics is no more a ‘science of the mind’ than my foot is a foundation for astrophysics.

Literary Style and Readability I found it remarkably ironic that at the beginning of the book Hubbard claimed he was going to use simple language so anyone can understand what he was saying. This book is written in anything but simple language. There are two primary pieces of clutter that makes this book a chore to read. First, he introduces so much jargon (e.g., Clears, aberrees, engrams, auditing, release, basic-basic, etc.) that if someone were to pick up the book and jump to, say, page 450, they would not understand a single paragraph. What’s more, Hubbard uses some of these words in multiple ways (engrams in particular), resulting in obfuscated jargon. This is particularly annoying considering many of the words Hubbard creates for Dianetics are similar, if not identical, to concepts used in classic Freudian analysis (e.g., repression, abnormal, fixated, etc. – more on the similarities between these two approaches below).

The second component of the book that makes it nearly unbearable to read is the incessant ‘word dropping.’ Hubbard loves to make references to things that are wholly irrelevant to what he is discussing (e.g., Torquemada – p. 342, Gaslight – p. 334, jub-jub bird – p. 281). To the educated reader, he reads like a game of scrabble between two pedants. He usually provides explanations or definitions for these useless additions to the text, but it’s more distracting than enlightening. Of course, the reason he does this is obvious – he wants to come across as smart, knowledgeable, and an expert. But to anyone with a college education, you’ll be able to see this for what it really is – a hornswoggler purloining people’s money using chicanery. (Translation: he’s a crook that is using big words to deceive people; see, anyone can do this, but if you are going to claim you are going to use simple language, you should…)

Finally, the sections and chapters do not have summaries. To the individual reading the book out of passing interest and not as though it were scripture, summaries are invaluable as they encapsulate the gist of sections of the book so you don’t have to read everything closely. Why Hubbard chose not to include summaries is beyond me, but it means you have to read the book much closer than you would a book that is well-written.

Dianetic Therapy – Auditing So, Hubbard’s approach isn’t scientific and reading his book isn’t enjoyable, but is his therapy worth a hill of beans? No. But not for the reasons you might think. What you have to understand about Dianetics is that it is nothing more than repackaged Freudian psychoanalysis with some really bizarre twists. Basically, Hubbard believes things that happened in people’s pasts, primarily their childhoods, are the cause of their psychosomatic and psychological problems in the present. While his claims about colds and arthritis being psychosomatic are obviously ridiculous, there seems to be a great deal of truth to the notion that psychological difficulties can have roots in the past, particularly during childhood (which is the basis for Freudian psychoanalysis). In this sense, Hubbard is just stealing from Freud. Thus, the reason his approach is worthless is because it doesn’t offer anything new that is actually worthwhile. While not everything Freud proposed has been shown to be accurate or beneficial, Freud’s basic ideas have been illustrated to be worthwhile. In short, there is absolutely no need for Hubbard’s Dianetics, especially considering how terribly he convolutes simple psychoanalytic notions.

For instance, Hubbard can’t just steal from Freud… He has to one-up him. While Freud claimed psychological problems can have origins in childhood, Hubbard pushes the roots of problems further back into a person’s history, so far back, in fact, that it almost seems like Hubbard has to be joking. But, alas, I assure you that he is not. Hubbard claims that people can begin developing engrams (psychological problems) as early as conception and believes that people can even remember being sperm or ova. Gotcha Freud! Top that!

In addition to potentially developing engrams as early as conception, Hubbard has some absolutely asinine notions about consciousness. He basically believes that whenever someone is sleeping, hypnotized, or otherwise unconscious, they are remarkably susceptible to developing engrams (children in the womb are also susceptible; see p. 130). His solution is to demand absolute silence in all of these situations, "In passing, it should be mentioned that only absolute silence, utter silence and tomblike silence should attend an operation or injury of any kind" (p. 171).

One example Hubbard gives of the necessity of silence (p. 173) is the idea that if two people get into a fight while a third person is unconscious or semi-conscious (e.g., in the dentist’s chair breathing nitrous oxide), that person will invariably go insane. I was so impressed by Hubbard’s argument here that I reduced it to a formula: Happy A + Sad B = Crazy C. Pythagoras has nothing on Hubbard ;) This is just about the dumbest thing I have ever read.

Returning to the comparison between Freud and Hubbard, Hubbard also talks a lot about sex. He doesn’t develop Oedipus complexes, but he certainly has his fair share of sexual fixations. I would submit that a full-third of the engrams discussed by Hubbard have something to do with sex, forced sex, rape, abortion, or some other violent sexual encounter. While I’m the first to admit that sex (and rape, in particular) can have drastic consequences on the human psyche, I am not a big believer in the idea that most psychological problems boil down to sex. But, once again, I think what we have here is a personal experience of Hubbard’s that is being forced into his philosophical therapy where it doesn’t belong.

But what makes Dianetics so fascinating in the end is the fact that Hubbard claims it is not just a form of therapy, "Dianetics is not psychiatry. It is not psychoanalysis. It is not psychology. It is not personal relations. It is not hypnotism. It is a science of mind and needs about as much licensing and regulation as the application of the science of physics. Those things which are legislated against are a matter of law because they may in some way injure individuals or society" (p. 245). I think I agree with Hubbard here; Dianetics is not therapy. It is quackish ideology laced with superstition and rooted in nonsense.

But Hubbard does make one good point that I think should be the key message derived from this book – those things that are potentially harmful should be regulated. Considering how ridiculous Dianetics is and the fact that Hubbard believes any Joe Schmoe after reading Dianetics should be considered a fully-qualified auditor that can treat psychological disorders, someone should be regulating and licensing these imbeciles! Who knows what damage scientologists are doing to their patients? In fact, I think after I finish this review I’m going to send a copy of it to my local congressional representative and encourage them to look into the regulation of Dianetics therapy ‘cause what they propose to do to people is pretty scary!

Several Miscellaneous Points First, the book claims, at the end, that ‘50 million copies are in print.’ I’ve always hated claims like this about The Book of Mormon and The Bible. These claims are meaningless when the sponsoring organization (The Mormon Church and innumerable Christian churches) literally print these books and give them away free of charge. Claiming that 50 million copies of Dianetics are in print is meaningless because Scientologists print the copies and give them away. In fact, the copy I read was given to me free. Just because they’ve printed a gazillion copies doesn’t mean the book is worth anything. In fact, the actual price of the paper pulp is worth more than the contents of the book. My suggestion – recycle the book. Reading it certainly isn’t worthwhile.

Second, Hubbard makes an error that has been clearly refuted by Stephen J. Gould in ‘The Mismeasure of Man’: he reifies theoretical constructs. In short, Hubbard comes up with ideas about how the brain works then claims that actual components of the physical brain control the brain in accordance with his constructs. His constructs may be useful for understanding how we think, but they have no basis in the physiology of the human brain. This is just one more example of the ridiculous claims of Hubbard; he really didn’t have a clue, despite his ability to write very big books.

Third, I wonder if anyone has ever studied Hubbard in relation to this book. I’m just speculating here, but I’ll bet he had a rough childhood and this book illustrates how he, personally, dealt with his past in such a way that he actually turned out to be a successful author. But, in addition to this being how he coped with his past, I’m thinking there is more to the therapy. I’d wager that Hubbard was mildly autistic and this was the basis for his fixation on silence. Many autistic individuals are particularly sensitive to certain noises. For most people, when they are unconscious, they are simply that – unaware of the world around them. But for someone that is as fixated on the detriments of noise as is Hubbard, I’m thinking there has to be something else going on. Finally, Hubbard’s views on homosexuality, sex, and abortion seem to indicate that there may also have been something else going on here. Perhaps he just had bad experiences in these areas, but whatever it was, he certainly had some problems along these lines.

Finally, the book is blatantly elitist and prejudicial. Hubbard goes so far as to claim that Clears are "on whom our racial future depends" (p. 196). Additionally, he believes more primitive people (African tribes, specifically, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he included races other than whites) are inherently more psychologically disturbed than are whites (p. 200). So, not only does Hubbard have some very strange notions about humanity in general, but he also believes certain groups of people are better than others.

Conclusion I apologize for the length of this review, but I think it was necessary. This is, after all, the primary text for an entire religious movement. However, after having read this book, I cannot understand why that is. The primary reason I took the time to read this book was because it is associated with Scientology, which is argued to be a religion. But unless a great deal of theology has been added to the ideas in Dianetics, I fail to see why it should be categorized as a religion. Classic definitions of religion include a notion of the supernatural or some means of relating to it. Other than the occasional off-handed reference to God, Dianetics does not address religion whatsoever. Thus, unless there’s something I’m missing, I don’t think categorizing Scientology as a religion is accurate. It should, instead, be considered an organization for practitioners of Dianetics therapy akin to Alcoholics Anonymous or Sex Addicts Anonymous. As such, it should certainly be regulated. Of course there is the MLM aspect of Scientology, but since I am not particularly familiar with that aspect, I’m not going to comment on it at this point.

Overall, this book is worth only the cost of the paper pulp it is printed on. Your time would be better spent watching television than reading this book (and I don’t think all that highly of just watching television). At best it will confuse you; at worst, it will lead you to contact an auditor, who is, in my estimation, more than likely to really screw you up. I have to admit I liked some of L. Ron Hubbard’s science fiction, but his personal philosophy on life is better left in the past than proselytized as the science of the future.

Additional Notes:

Scientology Engrams Therapy

Christianity sins repentance

Science social construction realization

laymen’s terms problem cure

Ways to Test Dianetics and Its Claims: -see if Clears have been ticketed in accidents -see if Clears can regress themselves to conception -see if Clears can remember everything they see and hear

p. 11 Reframing history as the search for what he claims to be offering. Revisionist approach if I’ve ever seen one. Only the historical ignoramus would buy this argument.

Go Back