I said there was an obvious relationship between some of the underpinnings of Dianetics and what is described in this article.
This is patently obvious to anyone who's read Dianetics, and the article.
I don't support Dianetics overall as anything reasonable because it's mostly rubbish, but again, some of the ideas expressed in there are nary identical to what is described in the article, which is just a fact.
Not everything is black and white: a lot of current psychology is scientifically rubbish, and a lot of ideas postulated in the past by not-so-straight people are at least interesting, and may have shades of validity.
I said there was an obvious relationship between some of the underpinnings of Dianetics and what is described in this article.
This is patently obvious to anyone who's read Dianetics, and the article.
I don't support Dianetics overall as anything reasonable because it's mostly rubbish, but again, some of the ideas expressed in there are nary identical to what is described in the article, which is just a fact.
Not everything is black and white: a lot of current psychology is scientifically rubbish, and a lot of ideas postulated in the past by not-so-straight people are at least interesting, and may have shades of validity.
reply