What do you think?
Rate this book
Dianetics: The Original Thesis
The Original Thesis L. Ron Hubbard's first description of Dianetics. Originally circulated in manuscript form, it was soon copied and passed from hand to hand. Ensuing word of mouth created such demand for more information, Ron concluded the only way to answer the inquiries was with a book. That book was The Modern Science of Mental Health, now the all-time self-help bestseller. Find out what started it all. For here is the bedrock foundation of Dianetic the Original Axioms, the Dynamic Principle of Existence, the Anatomy of the Analytical and Reactive Mind, the Dynamics, the Tone Scale, the Auditor’s Code and the first description of a Clear. Even more than that, here are the primary laws describing how and why auditing works. It’s only here in The Original Thesis.
173 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1979
13 people are currently reading
267 people want to read
About the author
L. Ron Hubbard
1,927 books648 followersL. Ron Hubbard is universally acclaimed as the single most influential author and humanitarian of this modern age. His definitive works on the mind and spirit—comprising over 350 million copies in circulation and more than 40 international bestsellers—have resulted in a legacy benefiting millions and a movement spanning all cultures.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
January 26, 2011
Not only does this book offer nothing scientific, offers nothing but taking Hubbards word that it is all true, but it is also one of the most poorly written works I have ever had the misfortune to read.
The style seems designed to be confusing, requiring one read certain paragraphs over and over and over again in the hopes of understanding. He shifted the definitions of some words, but doesn't tell you that he did so until well into the work, so you have to go back and read it all over again in the context in which he intended.
This book is short. Really short. But there were some late nights I was reading this where I was stuck on one paragraph, and one night in particular where, in my frustration, screamed, "What are you trying to tell me you dead bastard?!" I wish I was making that up.
No doubt the Scientologists who might read this will figure me to be just some ignorant wog who couldn't handle the might that is LRH's word. Or that I'm some Psych trying to cause trouble. I would like to make these points, then:
His later books, including ones that were even shorter than *this*, were much easier to read. There's just as much bullshit, but it's bullshit one can understand.
And also, I would ask you this question: how much of the first book is kept in later readings? Like, for instance, when you get to A Handbook for Preclears? When engrams turn to facsimiles? From your mental problems not being your fault to totally being your fault?
What? It changed?!
Then why are you told to buy Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health when in the end virtually nothing is kept? Why not compile a new book with all the accurate information?
Think on it.
The style seems designed to be confusing, requiring one read certain paragraphs over and over and over again in the hopes of understanding. He shifted the definitions of some words, but doesn't tell you that he did so until well into the work, so you have to go back and read it all over again in the context in which he intended.
This book is short. Really short. But there were some late nights I was reading this where I was stuck on one paragraph, and one night in particular where, in my frustration, screamed, "What are you trying to tell me you dead bastard?!" I wish I was making that up.
No doubt the Scientologists who might read this will figure me to be just some ignorant wog who couldn't handle the might that is LRH's word. Or that I'm some Psych trying to cause trouble. I would like to make these points, then:
His later books, including ones that were even shorter than *this*, were much easier to read. There's just as much bullshit, but it's bullshit one can understand.
And also, I would ask you this question: how much of the first book is kept in later readings? Like, for instance, when you get to A Handbook for Preclears? When engrams turn to facsimiles? From your mental problems not being your fault to totally being your fault?
What? It changed?!
Then why are you told to buy Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health when in the end virtually nothing is kept? Why not compile a new book with all the accurate information?
Think on it.
September 15, 2014
I read this book in conjunction with interviews I am conducting for Awakenings: Felt Benefit In Personal Values (www.awakeningsproject.wix.com/awakenings). In addition to reading Original Thesis, I have met with staff at a Scientology church, have undergone an Oxford Capacity Assessment (“Free Personality Test”) at their site, and I look forward to interviewing a few Scientologists for my research soon.
First, let me establish something. There is no denying that Hubbard was a genius. I know he’s derided by many who don’t take his religion or methodology seriously, and vilified by those who consider his ideas a grave threat against humankind or a specific belief system, but that doesn’t discount the fact that his prodigious literary output and complex ideology are tremendously orchestrated and deeply ramified into a very well thought-out system. I have no doubt he was an extremely informed person, and he wrote intelligently and assiduously in order for people to take him seriously as a religious Czar. He desperately wanted people to think of his work as scientific, though it mostly strikes one as innovative, and I believe that it was his innovation that brought him his enormous success. He clearly created more than he relayed, and if his Scientology is scientific—in the sense of being verified by other leading scientists or presenting hypotheses that are testable for definite verification—then science is in some serious trouble.
But as it stands, I think Hubbard did the right thing in declaring his Scientology—a label probably intended to evoke respect for dispassionate research and reportage, which it is not—a ‘religion.’ Religions require faith, and Scientology most certainly requires a LOT of faith, but religion does something very specific that science doesn’t do: it speaks to what a person wants, and provides a sense of direction and meaning for one’s life that is based on an emotional connection with the content of that faith. Science more closely deals with impersonal data, calculation, and ‘detached’ intellection; religion more closely deals with passion, instinct, and volition. I personally think that both science and religion are pursuits of every human being in varying degrees, though many systems of behavior or thought often represent more one function than the other; therefore both are legit. So, Scientology as a religion is not a bad thing in all cases, although the idea of a ‘new religion’ is humorous in most people’s mind as an absurdity or an anachronism.
I can’t really speak to the type of person Hubbard was because I haven’t done enough research—even though he might strike one as a slime-ball in his interviews, and I haven’t interacted enough with his metaphysics which account for the origin and destination of life, though I generally distrust its extremes; but I do think the practical results of his Dianetics seems to have done a lot of good for many, and has been reported to have transformed individuals and communities for the better (http://www.scientology.org/how-we-hel...). For all its oddities and possible snares for authority-seeking types of individuals, its results are still impressive, considering alone the massive amount of followers it has attained over the years.
Hubbard cooked up something novel, expansive, and fully planned to last. It’s clearly a knock-off of psychoanalysis with a few new tricks and a religion’s-worth of cleverly minted and repurposed terms, but it looks like something different on the surface, and for those who don’t know yet what they believe in, it certainly offers something substantial. You’ll sooner reach the bottom of most world religions combined, with regard to their central texts, than you will the total, staggering volume of Hubbard’s works alone which include written and audio recordings on a wide range of topics including literacy, mental health, personality assessment, metaphysics, business administration, and addiction. Reading through his works would truly amount to a lifetime reading plan for most people, which introduces a fairly serious risk to the naïve in commencing the perpetual chain of obligatory reading material which is sure to end in an extremely provincial understanding of the world through the exclusivity of reading habits that is required to commit to finish Hubbard’s nearly interminable opus. In other words, if someone starts down that road and later decides it’s not the right path, they may find it’s a long way back; so I imagine most would rather just keep their head down and keep reading, whether it still seems cogent or not—it’s better than starting over.
Dianetics [Dia—“through”, nous—“soul”]: The Original Thesis begins with the primary axioms on which Hubbard founded his practices. The first axiom, which is the primary drive of humanity, is: “Survive!” This he calls the “Dynamic” which is divided into multiple expressions, or “dynamics”, which include self, one’s life-partner and family, one’s social groups, the extended community/nation/world; and in later books he further includes non-human categories of animal, the physical world, the spiritual world, and finally, infinity. Hubbard teaches that for each person these drives to survive and expand the support network for one’s survival derail when attempting to navigate traumatic experiences which create an unhealthy dependence on the ‘reactive mind’, and so the original Dynamic must be reinstated by a rigorous and guided process of placing the more highly evolved and sophisticated analytical mind back in charge through a psycho-therapeutic operation called auditing.
Auditing is the cooperative effort of an auditor and a participant to go back (‘return’) to birth (‘the basic’) and prenatal memories to neutralize the harmful and unconscious reactions to negative memories (‘engrams’) in the ‘reactive mind’. These engrams are memories of dangers which continue to influence an individual, but which no longer represent real threats. The primary goal of auditing is to prompt the ‘pre-clear’ (the participant who cannot access clear analytical reasoning) to remember trauma in the womb and to bring them to desensitize themselves to those experiences through overexposure. “What,” might you ask, “could be a prenatal memory that is traumatic?” Well, that would be the attempted abortions that nearly every baby boomer has experienced, according to Hubbard. To be fair, he does state that there may be other postpartum trauma that impairs an adult and causes ‘dramatizations’ or outbursts which hamstring their functions, health, and happiness in later life; but he is very adamant on the point that the primary engrams to be disarmed are those caused by prenatal abortion attempts and birth itself. The auditing process is an intense and closely guided therapy session of reactivating those fetal memories in order to neutralize them.
He defends the possibility of being able to consciously return to fetal memories by reasoning that the human brain is recording events and storing experiential data at all stages of its development, even during its unconscious moments. It seems logical that everything sensed by the brain is at least partially recorded in life, but the few objections I have to his ideology would be, 1) a baby’s brain is still developing and continues to do so into adulthood along with its sensory, mnemonic, and interpretive functioning which serves and constructs a sense of what we call ‘consciousness’ and can’t be expected to construct meaning and record data to fit into discrete categories that can be sequentially accessed later for clear interpretation by an individual or an auditor, 2) a baby’s brain is as selective about what it records and how it records as is the adult’s, so it seems nonsense to suppose it indiscriminately records everything that happens to it in anything but shorthand or extremely fragmented hieroglyphics suitable to early stage of growth, 3) if conscious returns to unconscious impressions were always possible, it would imply that all sensory recordings on the physical plane during an adult’s sleep could be later reconstructed just as easily, like air currents or sounds during REM cycles, and 4) if conscious returns to birth and pre-birth could be reached, why wouldn’t reaching them be an experience far more common than it seems to be now? If Hubbard is right, then everyone who existed before 1950 should be categorized as a pre-clear, which is roughly a billion-billion people (give or take a few billion Neolithic homo sapiens) who were intellectually impaired and lost in the non-Hubbardian darkness.
I do tend to give some credence to what I consider to be scientifically conducted experiments and peer-reviewed research in recreating alleged birth trauma and helping individuals to cope through exposure to what is believed to be perinatal memory of sorts (see the work of Stanislav Grof and Christopher Bache). Probably this amounts to more of a sympathy and admiration for the courage to both develop beta therapeutic techniques which might be helpful to people, and to stand with their new ideas against the tsunami of scientific evidence that might seem at times to fly in their face. However, though the concepts of Dianetics intrigue me, I think it is at bottom mostly neologistic craftiness and shifty formalism. But still, I don’t think Scientology is all bad, or better yet, I don’t believe it is all bad for all people. It is my belief that Hubbard to some extent probably had the good of others in mind. Reading over his principles and methods I get the feeling he may have been working miracles among the disturbed, and who knows, his most faithful adherents may have been the breeding grounds for psychopathy, and I don’t mean that in a hateful way. Even his subtle reminders throughout his works that those who have been ‘cleared’ of mental ‘aberration’ would no longer be obsessively introverted (“introversion is not natural nor is it necessary to the creation of anything”) might be a signal that his focus was on the compulsive type whom he probably even had to ward off from an over-interest in even his own ideas (“so long as he is interested in his own reactive mind [one of the fundamental principles of Dianetics and auditing], he has engrams [corrupted thought]”).
All decriers of what is widely considered eccentric religious belief like Scientology have to ask themselves if they are sincerely ready to know what the world would be like without religion. If all religions of the world were turned upside-down and shaken, what neuroses/psychoses would fall back into general society without the guardrails and/or systematic suppression of superstition, shaming dogma, unquestioned authority, and congregational pressure to conform? Speaking for myself, I’d be afraid of what would shake out. Especially out of the Scientology domain. And yet, I truly hope that those who are ready to become “prey to a freedom that is no longer chained-up” would find the courage they need to break out.
So, it seems to me that there is some value in Dianetics as a self-help tool. Even coming to terms with shock of the ‘exile’ of existence in general—through the emotional bath of a phantasmagoric and semi-hypnotic, free-associative exploration of the themes of pain, birth, thought, memory, dreams, and primal reflexes through the contrived rigors of auditing—appears to be beneficial to some degree, and quite possibly the whole success of Dianetics hangs on this the catharsis and relational support of auditing. Considering for a moment the sole impact of the first axiom of Dianetics which lays out one’s primal and primary function of “Survive!”, Dianetics initially appears valid; and moving a few steps further it continues to ring true in explanations about how the survival of self grows more ‘dynamic’, healthy, and happy when it includes the welfare and survival of others and one’s environment. This survival of self and others is the basic message of Scientologists’ oft-distributed book, The Way To Happiness by Hubbard, which is an extremely simplistic, bordering-on-banal, code of ethics that monotonously pecks into one’s head the message: “Your survival and wellbeing must include the survival and wellbeing of others or you’re not going to thrive.” Who can argue that these seem positive and sensible messages for our world? Of course, good ideas often are the Trojan Horses for incubating bad ideas, but that’s sort-of-but-maybe-not-really beside the point.
I realize I am attempting to sum up a religion, and it must be remembered that I only read Dianetics: The Original Thesis containing Hubbard’s tiny germ of original thought which I understand was greatly revised, expanded, complicated, tangled, transmogrified, and ruptured into Dianetics: The Modern Science Of Mental Health. Well anyway, for what it’s worth, Dianetics at its rudimentary core, distinct from its later expressions and Scientology framework, gets my vote to stay around as long as it can. Until it ruins some poor bastard. In which case, thumbs down.
And also (this is probably as good a time as any to say this) the film The Master, which intentionally parallels the life of L. Ron Hubbard, is brilliant. R.I.P. Philip Seymour Hoffman. Oh, and Hubbard too.
First, let me establish something. There is no denying that Hubbard was a genius. I know he’s derided by many who don’t take his religion or methodology seriously, and vilified by those who consider his ideas a grave threat against humankind or a specific belief system, but that doesn’t discount the fact that his prodigious literary output and complex ideology are tremendously orchestrated and deeply ramified into a very well thought-out system. I have no doubt he was an extremely informed person, and he wrote intelligently and assiduously in order for people to take him seriously as a religious Czar. He desperately wanted people to think of his work as scientific, though it mostly strikes one as innovative, and I believe that it was his innovation that brought him his enormous success. He clearly created more than he relayed, and if his Scientology is scientific—in the sense of being verified by other leading scientists or presenting hypotheses that are testable for definite verification—then science is in some serious trouble.
But as it stands, I think Hubbard did the right thing in declaring his Scientology—a label probably intended to evoke respect for dispassionate research and reportage, which it is not—a ‘religion.’ Religions require faith, and Scientology most certainly requires a LOT of faith, but religion does something very specific that science doesn’t do: it speaks to what a person wants, and provides a sense of direction and meaning for one’s life that is based on an emotional connection with the content of that faith. Science more closely deals with impersonal data, calculation, and ‘detached’ intellection; religion more closely deals with passion, instinct, and volition. I personally think that both science and religion are pursuits of every human being in varying degrees, though many systems of behavior or thought often represent more one function than the other; therefore both are legit. So, Scientology as a religion is not a bad thing in all cases, although the idea of a ‘new religion’ is humorous in most people’s mind as an absurdity or an anachronism.
I can’t really speak to the type of person Hubbard was because I haven’t done enough research—even though he might strike one as a slime-ball in his interviews, and I haven’t interacted enough with his metaphysics which account for the origin and destination of life, though I generally distrust its extremes; but I do think the practical results of his Dianetics seems to have done a lot of good for many, and has been reported to have transformed individuals and communities for the better (http://www.scientology.org/how-we-hel...). For all its oddities and possible snares for authority-seeking types of individuals, its results are still impressive, considering alone the massive amount of followers it has attained over the years.
Hubbard cooked up something novel, expansive, and fully planned to last. It’s clearly a knock-off of psychoanalysis with a few new tricks and a religion’s-worth of cleverly minted and repurposed terms, but it looks like something different on the surface, and for those who don’t know yet what they believe in, it certainly offers something substantial. You’ll sooner reach the bottom of most world religions combined, with regard to their central texts, than you will the total, staggering volume of Hubbard’s works alone which include written and audio recordings on a wide range of topics including literacy, mental health, personality assessment, metaphysics, business administration, and addiction. Reading through his works would truly amount to a lifetime reading plan for most people, which introduces a fairly serious risk to the naïve in commencing the perpetual chain of obligatory reading material which is sure to end in an extremely provincial understanding of the world through the exclusivity of reading habits that is required to commit to finish Hubbard’s nearly interminable opus. In other words, if someone starts down that road and later decides it’s not the right path, they may find it’s a long way back; so I imagine most would rather just keep their head down and keep reading, whether it still seems cogent or not—it’s better than starting over.
Dianetics [Dia—“through”, nous—“soul”]: The Original Thesis begins with the primary axioms on which Hubbard founded his practices. The first axiom, which is the primary drive of humanity, is: “Survive!” This he calls the “Dynamic” which is divided into multiple expressions, or “dynamics”, which include self, one’s life-partner and family, one’s social groups, the extended community/nation/world; and in later books he further includes non-human categories of animal, the physical world, the spiritual world, and finally, infinity. Hubbard teaches that for each person these drives to survive and expand the support network for one’s survival derail when attempting to navigate traumatic experiences which create an unhealthy dependence on the ‘reactive mind’, and so the original Dynamic must be reinstated by a rigorous and guided process of placing the more highly evolved and sophisticated analytical mind back in charge through a psycho-therapeutic operation called auditing.
Auditing is the cooperative effort of an auditor and a participant to go back (‘return’) to birth (‘the basic’) and prenatal memories to neutralize the harmful and unconscious reactions to negative memories (‘engrams’) in the ‘reactive mind’. These engrams are memories of dangers which continue to influence an individual, but which no longer represent real threats. The primary goal of auditing is to prompt the ‘pre-clear’ (the participant who cannot access clear analytical reasoning) to remember trauma in the womb and to bring them to desensitize themselves to those experiences through overexposure. “What,” might you ask, “could be a prenatal memory that is traumatic?” Well, that would be the attempted abortions that nearly every baby boomer has experienced, according to Hubbard. To be fair, he does state that there may be other postpartum trauma that impairs an adult and causes ‘dramatizations’ or outbursts which hamstring their functions, health, and happiness in later life; but he is very adamant on the point that the primary engrams to be disarmed are those caused by prenatal abortion attempts and birth itself. The auditing process is an intense and closely guided therapy session of reactivating those fetal memories in order to neutralize them.
He defends the possibility of being able to consciously return to fetal memories by reasoning that the human brain is recording events and storing experiential data at all stages of its development, even during its unconscious moments. It seems logical that everything sensed by the brain is at least partially recorded in life, but the few objections I have to his ideology would be, 1) a baby’s brain is still developing and continues to do so into adulthood along with its sensory, mnemonic, and interpretive functioning which serves and constructs a sense of what we call ‘consciousness’ and can’t be expected to construct meaning and record data to fit into discrete categories that can be sequentially accessed later for clear interpretation by an individual or an auditor, 2) a baby’s brain is as selective about what it records and how it records as is the adult’s, so it seems nonsense to suppose it indiscriminately records everything that happens to it in anything but shorthand or extremely fragmented hieroglyphics suitable to early stage of growth, 3) if conscious returns to unconscious impressions were always possible, it would imply that all sensory recordings on the physical plane during an adult’s sleep could be later reconstructed just as easily, like air currents or sounds during REM cycles, and 4) if conscious returns to birth and pre-birth could be reached, why wouldn’t reaching them be an experience far more common than it seems to be now? If Hubbard is right, then everyone who existed before 1950 should be categorized as a pre-clear, which is roughly a billion-billion people (give or take a few billion Neolithic homo sapiens) who were intellectually impaired and lost in the non-Hubbardian darkness.
I do tend to give some credence to what I consider to be scientifically conducted experiments and peer-reviewed research in recreating alleged birth trauma and helping individuals to cope through exposure to what is believed to be perinatal memory of sorts (see the work of Stanislav Grof and Christopher Bache). Probably this amounts to more of a sympathy and admiration for the courage to both develop beta therapeutic techniques which might be helpful to people, and to stand with their new ideas against the tsunami of scientific evidence that might seem at times to fly in their face. However, though the concepts of Dianetics intrigue me, I think it is at bottom mostly neologistic craftiness and shifty formalism. But still, I don’t think Scientology is all bad, or better yet, I don’t believe it is all bad for all people. It is my belief that Hubbard to some extent probably had the good of others in mind. Reading over his principles and methods I get the feeling he may have been working miracles among the disturbed, and who knows, his most faithful adherents may have been the breeding grounds for psychopathy, and I don’t mean that in a hateful way. Even his subtle reminders throughout his works that those who have been ‘cleared’ of mental ‘aberration’ would no longer be obsessively introverted (“introversion is not natural nor is it necessary to the creation of anything”) might be a signal that his focus was on the compulsive type whom he probably even had to ward off from an over-interest in even his own ideas (“so long as he is interested in his own reactive mind [one of the fundamental principles of Dianetics and auditing], he has engrams [corrupted thought]”).
All decriers of what is widely considered eccentric religious belief like Scientology have to ask themselves if they are sincerely ready to know what the world would be like without religion. If all religions of the world were turned upside-down and shaken, what neuroses/psychoses would fall back into general society without the guardrails and/or systematic suppression of superstition, shaming dogma, unquestioned authority, and congregational pressure to conform? Speaking for myself, I’d be afraid of what would shake out. Especially out of the Scientology domain. And yet, I truly hope that those who are ready to become “prey to a freedom that is no longer chained-up” would find the courage they need to break out.
So, it seems to me that there is some value in Dianetics as a self-help tool. Even coming to terms with shock of the ‘exile’ of existence in general—through the emotional bath of a phantasmagoric and semi-hypnotic, free-associative exploration of the themes of pain, birth, thought, memory, dreams, and primal reflexes through the contrived rigors of auditing—appears to be beneficial to some degree, and quite possibly the whole success of Dianetics hangs on this the catharsis and relational support of auditing. Considering for a moment the sole impact of the first axiom of Dianetics which lays out one’s primal and primary function of “Survive!”, Dianetics initially appears valid; and moving a few steps further it continues to ring true in explanations about how the survival of self grows more ‘dynamic’, healthy, and happy when it includes the welfare and survival of others and one’s environment. This survival of self and others is the basic message of Scientologists’ oft-distributed book, The Way To Happiness by Hubbard, which is an extremely simplistic, bordering-on-banal, code of ethics that monotonously pecks into one’s head the message: “Your survival and wellbeing must include the survival and wellbeing of others or you’re not going to thrive.” Who can argue that these seem positive and sensible messages for our world? Of course, good ideas often are the Trojan Horses for incubating bad ideas, but that’s sort-of-but-maybe-not-really beside the point.
I realize I am attempting to sum up a religion, and it must be remembered that I only read Dianetics: The Original Thesis containing Hubbard’s tiny germ of original thought which I understand was greatly revised, expanded, complicated, tangled, transmogrified, and ruptured into Dianetics: The Modern Science Of Mental Health. Well anyway, for what it’s worth, Dianetics at its rudimentary core, distinct from its later expressions and Scientology framework, gets my vote to stay around as long as it can. Until it ruins some poor bastard. In which case, thumbs down.
And also (this is probably as good a time as any to say this) the film The Master, which intentionally parallels the life of L. Ron Hubbard, is brilliant. R.I.P. Philip Seymour Hoffman. Oh, and Hubbard too.
September 1, 2010
Couldn't finish the book because it was entirely too boring. I don't know how scientologists do it...
February 18, 2019
Lol
My brain is melting out of my ears
Is there an engram for that?
My brain is melting out of my ears
Is there an engram for that?
June 12, 2017
Dianetics is admittedly a pragmatic theory of health, based only on workable axioms... it is an alternative science. The seductive theory is supporter by heaps of anecdotal evidence. But published in 1950 by a single author - a science fiction writer - there is a lot that doesn't hold up to any established science, lacking the scientific principles of ockhams razor and retestability. The axioms it claims are also highly dubious. It is utterly speculative, and though there could be significant correlation, there is no causality in its therapeutic effects; if there is, it is placeboic. Dianetics is a self-sustaining ecosystem of ideas, each providing evidence for the other in a circle. Even "the original thesis" cannot be stated without reference to several other branches within the dianetics family.
April 3, 2020
I understand that this book took a lot of work as far as restoration was concerned and for that I sincerely thank the publishers. Dianetics the original thesis is a brief introduction into the study or Dianetics, the book itself is rather short and can be read in less than 2 hours. The book covers the primary axioms and the dynamic principle of existence in addition to engrams, auditing and Hubbard's first description of the clear. I would recommend this book for anybody studying Dianetics who wants a thorough overview of the subject. A great precursor to the more detailed and comprehensive "Dianetics".
September 20, 2024
So rather than criticise something I haven’t read, I decided to read it cover to cover and apply Hubbard’s rule of not skipping words I don’t understand. And it was still bullshit.
I think the most annoying thing about Hubbard and his writing (putting the Church of Scientology aside) is the level of intellectual dishonesty that permeates all his work. He insists that he’s conducted exhaustive research and that Dianetics is a science, but this is not something that has been rigorously researched or empirically validated at all, and never will be.
The ideas read as the product of what could have happened if Freud and Darwin got together and, using alien technology that defies human biology, managed to make a baby. Except the end result is nothing short of Frankenstein’s monster.
Hubbard’s conception of engrams is similar to the orgone theory of Wilhelm Reich, a disgraced psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who, like Hubbard, was that lamentable synthesis of genius and charlatan. In many ways, Hubbard and his ideas would probably remain endearingly cranky today if he hadn’t used them to form one of the most destructive cults in existence and fleeced his followers out of their wellbeing, human rights and life savings.
Some of the passages are insightful and thought-provoking, but this doesn’t make it a science. It could read as good spiritual and philosophical writing if he hadn’t used it to such ill ends. We also have to acknowledge that Hubbard himself was a complicated man, and likely psychotic. Therefore, Dianetics could never be taken seriously as a clinical method, nor the theory that underpins it.
I think the most annoying thing about Hubbard and his writing (putting the Church of Scientology aside) is the level of intellectual dishonesty that permeates all his work. He insists that he’s conducted exhaustive research and that Dianetics is a science, but this is not something that has been rigorously researched or empirically validated at all, and never will be.
The ideas read as the product of what could have happened if Freud and Darwin got together and, using alien technology that defies human biology, managed to make a baby. Except the end result is nothing short of Frankenstein’s monster.
Hubbard’s conception of engrams is similar to the orgone theory of Wilhelm Reich, a disgraced psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who, like Hubbard, was that lamentable synthesis of genius and charlatan. In many ways, Hubbard and his ideas would probably remain endearingly cranky today if he hadn’t used them to form one of the most destructive cults in existence and fleeced his followers out of their wellbeing, human rights and life savings.
Some of the passages are insightful and thought-provoking, but this doesn’t make it a science. It could read as good spiritual and philosophical writing if he hadn’t used it to such ill ends. We also have to acknowledge that Hubbard himself was a complicated man, and likely psychotic. Therefore, Dianetics could never be taken seriously as a clinical method, nor the theory that underpins it.
February 24, 2019
First of all, I want to say it was very hard to give it a 2 star review. Considering the note at the beginning basically came across as if you don't understand something it is because you failed to understand or look up the words bothered me. (I mean, there are ideas out there that no amount of vocabulary can help us understand.) However, I did power through to the end and I made a personal rule that 1 stars would be reserved for books I could not finish.
The book is very very repetitive. In addition, he defined multiple common words, but only did so in the glossary. So, in the instances where context indicated he may be using an uncommon definition, one would have to go to the back of the book. There were times I felt like I could read the same paragraph multiple times and still not understand what he said (even if I knew all the words). Maybe the intro made me start in a poor mood because I did not appreciate being told I was too stupid to look up words (when you feel the need to define very common words). Maybe it was the fact that they said to presume attempted abortions in everyone of the "current" generation, which I was appalled at. Going into anything with assumptions is going to taint the experience and how you view it. It is definitely not scientific, including no references. And before anyone says it was self help book, I have read many of those that still contain references to the relevant studies or texts.
That said if you are curious about the belief systems based on his works and have a strong will it can be done. I plan to power through the other two books in this series out of my love for studying other beliefs more than anything else.
The book is very very repetitive. In addition, he defined multiple common words, but only did so in the glossary. So, in the instances where context indicated he may be using an uncommon definition, one would have to go to the back of the book. There were times I felt like I could read the same paragraph multiple times and still not understand what he said (even if I knew all the words). Maybe the intro made me start in a poor mood because I did not appreciate being told I was too stupid to look up words (when you feel the need to define very common words). Maybe it was the fact that they said to presume attempted abortions in everyone of the "current" generation, which I was appalled at. Going into anything with assumptions is going to taint the experience and how you view it. It is definitely not scientific, including no references. And before anyone says it was self help book, I have read many of those that still contain references to the relevant studies or texts.
That said if you are curious about the belief systems based on his works and have a strong will it can be done. I plan to power through the other two books in this series out of my love for studying other beliefs more than anything else.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 24, 2018
While a thin book with large print, it took me 3 entire months to clumsy my way through the round-a-bout arguments. Sentences repeated themselves in new words throughout the book and some chapters could have stood to be omitted entirely. The first hint that this would be, what I like to call a “try hard book”, was the note in the beginning on “how to read this book”. I give it three stars purely for creativity. The idea behind two entirely different minds and the linking of conditioned behaviors from experiences actually comes together in a way that, honestly, does sound appealing. Dianetics, from what I could ascertain from the intro, seems to be anti mental health, anti-gay, and in some more hidden ways anti-women. Essentially anything that isn’t considered an inherent property. I also found it incredibly interesting that experiences like failed abortions could impact individuals. Being 2018, it did take me a moment to understand what the social implications of that being included in this book were, so I found it to be very interesting.
January 18, 2020
Reading through this book was a struggle, but interesting in that the red flags pointing to cult like behavior control are clearly written in the text.
I'm thankful I was able to read it by borrowing it so that I didn't have to put one penny into the bank account of an organization that has so many deep rooted issues.
If you want to look into the texts of Scientology this book is a good example of their beliefs. Other than that it's not worth reading as it doesn't say anything of value and pretends to be a scientific book with no sources.
I'm thankful I was able to read it by borrowing it so that I didn't have to put one penny into the bank account of an organization that has so many deep rooted issues.
If you want to look into the texts of Scientology this book is a good example of their beliefs. Other than that it's not worth reading as it doesn't say anything of value and pretends to be a scientific book with no sources.
February 23, 2019
I saw commercials on TV for this book for decades, one day, I decided to dive in. On the surface, Hubbard makes a compelling argument for his self help method, but, it doesn't take long before it starts feeling a little creepy in the "come join my cult" sort of way, and this was before I learned of the "church" of scientology. Then it got mega creepy.
November 19, 2023
A very technical writing about how the mind is supposed to work in Hubbard's way of thinking. I believe that he was so full of himself, that he actually believed his book could help the masses. What it did and still does is make some good people act irrational, to the point of being abusive to others without knowing what they are doing! So glad I wasn't brought up to believe in this cult!
November 10, 2017
This book is one of Hubbard greatest works. The Original Thesis has great things that some of his other books have but was organized in a better way. Very easy to read and hard to put down. His original discoveries in Dianetics were profound.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 16, 2021
It was a lot of information to stretch the imagination. There are only four Dynamics discussed yet expanded now to eight. It is a mental metabolic tool for business, governments, agents and the ordinary people!
February 9, 2020
One of the worst books I've ever started - I did not finish it! Only bought it because I was strongarmed into doing so by a brainwashed cult member in 1975.
April 10, 2021
I much preferred Dianetics, but there was still some good stuff in this book.
July 24, 2022
Great insight into the human mind and solutions to handling ailments and problems in your life!
August 8, 2022
Hilarious!
October 17, 2025
This book has been very interesting! It got me when I read that this was the original one before Dianetics provided for doctors. So it helped me to understand how the discoveries started and why.
March 31, 2013
There was a time when I searched for answers that I believed could be anywhere, books were just one avenue. When something appeared to have an answer to one of life's questions, I read it. This was one of those books as were many others from various religions. While I'm not religious, my reasoning at the time of reading this and other books was simple: "You don't know if you don't read it." So I found out!
July 28, 2011
This is not just the introduction of Dianetics, this is also a way of how to understand the real meaning of Dianetics and every bit of Auditing. It is truly a book of beginning. In my own opinion this was the very first book that you have to read when you want to start on Dianetics.
September 10, 2016
Absolute rhubarb...however one has to give the guy stars for creativity.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews