Gullibility Revisited, part 2 - "When I first came into scientology I simply hadn't developed much ability to identify and challenge basic assumptions. I hadn't learned well that a hypothesis can sound like a stroke of genius, but still turn out to be dead wrong when subjected to a test of proof, and that this applies to social and philosophical as well as 'physical' hypotheses. These things weren't taught well where I went to school. They still aren't taught that well as far as I know, despite the nominal move toward 'critical thinking.' Maybe it would cause too much pain and turmoil by threatening too many cherished ideologies to teach these things well to kids, but it would have helped me to avoid the scientology trap.
Instead of identifying and challenging, I, like many others, made a horrific mistake. It seemed to make sense and to work for others, so I accepted it tentatively and decided to see if it would work for me. After all, this was the basic line being given out by the people promoting scientology to me at the time: 'You need it. It's the only thing that can solve your problems. Give it a try. See if it works for you!' At the time I sensed no danger. I didn't know that people could promote something false with such verve. I didn't know that some people could wildly exagerate and falsify their experiences with such wholesome sincerity. I didn't see that I had anything to lose. After all, I thought, what's so bad about giving something a try and seeing if it works? If it doesn't work, won't I soon realize it and leave? But there are several reasons why this DOES NOT hold true in ultra-manipulative, genuinely evil groups like Scientology...
Since leaving the scientology I've realized that hubbard and the scientology elite practiced and practice a kind of lying that was completely effective against me and other members I knew. Essentially, Hubbard claimed to be fighting the things he was actually trying to bring about, and claimed to be promoting the things he actually worked to destroy."