Was Scientology EVER popular among nerds or did nerds significantly contribute to it?

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@davidm

I wrote COBOL programs that were fed into computers via punch cards. I was most definitely doing programming, and I was most definitely a man, and the requests were more than vague.

Were you doing this in 1950? COBOL wasn’t even invented until 1959. How in the world does this relate to what either Wendell or I are talking about? Do you have any conception of how huge the difference was in computers between 1950 and COBOL? Or even FORTRAN in 1957? We’re arguing about computers before there existed computing. Or nerds.

And there was not a world of programming, a profession of programming, or even a culture of programming when Hubbard wrote Dianetics.

@NitroPress

I think you’re thinking of a slightly later era; ASF remained a prestigious and desired venue until around 1960, at which point JWC’s cracks really started to show. Many of the writers who left, like Heinlein, had moved into the far more profitable world of books, which didn’t exist as such for sf until around 1950.

No question that F&SF was the most literate, and Galaxy had a leg up on ASF gained as the 50’s progressed, but I’ll maintain than ASF was the center of the general nerd universe at the time.

You’ve shifted the argument from classy and elite. I’ll grant that Astounding was a fan favorite, but that’s not the same thing.

[Voyager]

@Exapno_Mapcase

Were you doing this in 1950? COBOL wasn’t even invented until 1959. How in the world does this relate to what either Wendell or I are talking about? Do you have any conception of how huge the difference was in computers between 1950 and COBOL? Or even FORTRAN in 1957? We’re arguing about computers before there existed computing. Or nerds.

And there was not a world of programming, a profession of programming, or even a culture of programming when Hubbard wrote Dianetics.

You are right about COBOL. You are wrong about programming. The IAS machine, which was built and programmed well before Hubbard’s article, was programmed in the traditional sense. Yes, ENIAC wasn’t but its successor, the EDVAC, also done at the Moore School, was. And Eckert and Mauchly had left to form UNIVAC well before Dianetics. It was hardly a big profession, but it was there. In fact I remember an article about Williams’ Tubes (the memory for the IAS machine and others) in ASF about this time, though I’d have to look it up.

Source: Turing’s Cathedral by George Dyson, not about Turing but actually about the IAS machine. I’m interested because my first PhD adviser was von Neumann’s student at Princeton, and worked on the machine.

[Voyager]

@NitroPress

I think you’re thinking of a slightly later era; ASF remained a prestigious and desired venue until around 1960, at which point JWC’s cracks really started to show. Many of the writers who left, like Heinlein, had moved into the far more profitable world of books, which didn’t exist as such for sf until around 1950.

Throughout the '50s Heinlein was concentrating on books. Many of his juveniles were serialized in the sf magazines, but the books were already sold.
I have and have read nearly every issue of the big 3 from the 1950s (and the '60s too.) The three magazines appealed to very different markets. There are a lot more classics from Galaxy and F&SF than 1950s ASF, though.

Dianetics was just the first outbreak of JWCs kookiness which progressed to the Dean Drive and other nuttery.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@Voyager

You are right about COBOL. You are wrong about programming. The IAS machine, which was built and programmed well before Hubbard’s article, was programmed in the traditional sense. Yes, ENIAC wasn’t but its successor, the EDVAC, also done at the Moore School, was. And Eckert and Mauchly had left to form UNIVAC well before Dianetics. It was hardly a big profession, but it was there. In fact I remember an article about Williams’ Tubes (the memory for the IAS machine and others) in ASF about this time, though I’d have to look it up.

Source: Turing’s Cathedral by George Dyson, not about Turing but actually about the IAS machine. I’m interested because my first PhD adviser was von Neumann’s student at Princeton, and worked on the machine.

As I keep saying, and guess I need to keep repeating, a handful of computers existed and a handful of people worked on them. I bet there were more serial killers in the country than programmers in 1950.

[Amateur_Barbarian]

@Exapno_Mapcase

You’ve shifted the argument from classy and elite.

Moi?

Guilty. I wrote that first post sloppily.

[Amateur_Barbarian]

@Voyager

Throughout the '50s Heinlein was concentrating on books.

Yes, zat is vut I zed.

When the market for books opened up, many of the big-name magazine authors all but abandoned short work for the much more profitable book world. Heinlein essentially never wrote another short story after 1950. (Two exceptions, both unusual.) The incoming crop of writers aimed their best works at F&SF, and later, Galaxy, and JWC was left with the old-old guard, second-raters, and fruitcakery.

[dzeiger]

Going back to the question of when Scientology came into serious conflict with nerds, when I got into Usenet in the early/mid 90s, there were already problems because of Scientologists sending out forged cancel messages and forged rmgroup messages to try and remove posts and discussions about Scientology there.

Now, very little is going to tick off a group of nerds more than ham-handed attempts at censorship of information, particularly in something they consider their own backyard, and it caused something of an early Streisand effect.

[eschereal]

But in its earlier years, the 60s and 70s, nerds were still not attracted to scientology. Why?

I suggest that it does not fall into the correct profile for nerd appeal. Nerds like real science and real science-fiction, but scientology has tried to bury its sci-fi well within the inner circle. My cousin, who does not quite qualify as a true nerd but can discuss speculative aspects of star trek at great length, read page one of Dianetics, got to the part where it claims that auditing can improve your eyesight (he has always needed glasses), said BS;FTN and threw the book over his shoulder.

Therein lies the problem. Nerds tend to be pretty perceptive, they have a pretty good nose for a scam (it is my personal opinion that scientology is a scam, I am not stating an established fact /CMA), scientology is just not appealing to them. They like science-fiction because they know it is genuinely fantastical; when something fantastical pretends to be real, nerds tend to not be interested. Especially when the fun and interesting parts are not readily accessible – it can take months or years and hundreds or thousands of dollars before you get to read about Incident II, who wants to screw around waiting to get to a second-rate story based on bad science?

[rogerbox]

Scientology is pretty much anti-nerdy in that Scientology makes falsifiable claims. So for example, a standard Abrahamic religion, nerds can take them or leave them (I’ve never known a bias for real science fiction nerds to be any more or less religious than the population at large) since they don’t make too many falsifiable claims, they’re more moral systems. But Scientology claims that massive infusions of vitamins for example can cure… I’m not sure, but ills. Most nerds would think this sounds fishy, look it up, and realize there is no science there.

I think the falsifiable claims Scientology makes that it can’t demonstrate, would cause it to have difficulty gaining momentum with nerds or fans of science fiction who tend to be skeptically minded. For example, there was a Scientology kiosk where you could get a “reading” with an e-meter while the Scientologist asked you questions about yourself. A real nerd would look up the e-meter online, see it doesn’t measure anything having to do with what it claims to do, and file Scientology away as bunk.
I HAVE noticed that whenever Scientologists talk in person or on camera, they seem to be following a script and come across as incredibly anti-social and bad with people though, is that what the OP is confusing with “nerdiness” perhaps?

[coremelt]

I think the people claiming “nerds are too perceptive / skeptical” to be fooled are kidding themselves. Many nerds would leap at being welcomed into an accepting group and you’re telling me their non conformists? Their are well established conventions of dress and style in geek fandom for example and very few people step outside them. Yeah I thought I was a non conformist too when I dressed as a goth like a big chunk of the other nerdy kids.

The few hardcore scientolgists I’ve met who were actively following the whole climbing the bridge thing were pretty damn nerdy. Scientology tells them they can get super powers in real life if they advance far enough. That’s pretty much every comic book geeks wet dream.

[rogerbox]

Skepticality doesn’t have anything to do with how one dresses or wanting to belong to a group.

Also you keep using “their” wrong.

[Leo_Bloom]

@dzeiger

…

Now, very little is going to tick off a group of nerds more than ham-handed attempts at censorship of information, particularly in something they consider their own backyard, and it caused something of an early Streisand effect.

I know what you’re saying–you define it, in fact-- but do you remember the origin of what the hell Streisand was trying to quash, which of course made it more popular?

@For You

…got to the part where it claims that auditing can improve your eyesight (he has always needed glasses), said BS;FTN and threw the book over his shoulder…

(Bolding mine)
Fuck This Nonsense?

[robert_columbia]

@rogerbox

Scientology is pretty much anti-nerdy in that Scientology makes falsifiable claims. So for example, a standard Abrahamic religion, nerds can take them or leave them (I’ve never known a bias for real science fiction nerds to be any more or less religious than the population at large) since they don’t make too many falsifiable claims, they’re more moral systems. But Scientology claims that massive infusions of vitamins for example can cure… I’m not sure, but ills. Most nerds would think this sounds fishy, look it up, and realize there is no science there.

I think the falsifiable claims Scientology makes that it can’t demonstrate, would cause it to have difficulty gaining momentum with nerds or fans of science fiction who tend to be skeptically minded…

@For You

…
Therein lies the problem. Nerds tend to be pretty perceptive, they have a pretty good nose for a scam (it is my personal opinion that scientology is a scam, I am not stating an established fact /CMA), scientology is just not appealing to them. They like science-fiction because they know it is genuinely fantastical; when something fantastical pretends to be real, nerds tend to not be interested…

These are really good points. Nerds tend to like SF - it’s fun, imaginative, and escapist and it provides a lot of common ground to interact with other nerds, but nerds know it’s fiction. There are nerds that are religious believers - there are plenty of SF fans who are devout Catholics and plenty of Evangelical Protestant anime fans. Even some SF authors are known for their adherence - Orson Scott Card is known to be LDS/Mormon, and I would call Ender’s Game pretty much the epitome of childhood nerd fantasies.

Other things that I suspect is turning “nerds” off to Scientology are the Church of Scientology’s anti-internet and pro-censorship thing, and the allegations of mind control. Catholic priests tend not to scream bloody murder if you try to read the works of Martin Luther (anti-Catholic materials) or medieval inquisition documents (Catholic materials that might be sort of embarrassing to the church today). They believe that the truth will stand up to the test. They even admit that they had a pro-censorship attitude in the past and still, to some extent, discourage unnecessary reading of “anti” materials, but they won’t shun you or put you in an isolation chamber for reading “forbidden books” today.

[eschereal]

@Leo_Bloom

Fuck This Nonsense?

“Noise”, fuck that noise.

[Voyager]

@NitroPress

Yes, zat is vut I zed.

When the market for books opened up, many of the big-name magazine authors all but abandoned short work for the much more profitable book world. Heinlein essentially never wrote another short story after 1950. (Two exceptions, both unusual.) The incoming crop of writers aimed their best works at F&SF, and later, Galaxy, and JWC was left with the old-old guard, second-raters, and fruitcakery.

To nitpick, Galaxy began only a year after the Magazine of Fantasy (later F&SF) which had a lot of reprints in the beginning. So they were close enough to simultaneous to make no never mind.

[Voyager]

@Exapno_Mapcase

As I keep saying, and guess I need to keep repeating, a handful of computers existed and a handful of people worked on them. I bet there were more serial killers in the country than programmers in 1950.

What you said was

We’re arguing about computers before there existed computing. Or nerds.

And computing definitely existed in 1950. The target of Dianetics was not the very small set of programmers, but there was plenty of opportunity for Hubbard to have learned about computer architecture by 1950 and incorporate it
It was not that great a leap. At IAS they referred to architectural blocks as “organs” and computers in general were “electronic brains.”

[Exapno_Mapcase]

There were computers but not computing. Computing is an industry, a profession, a body of thought that is understood and comprises a like group.

I know the history of computers. I’m aware of the antecedents, of the various claimants to be first, and of the development of them. The first modern robot is probably Televox, produced by Westinghouse in 1927. Others followed it and by the early 1930s, newspapers regularly carried stories about robots. But robotics as profession didn’t exist, and didn’t even have a name until Asimov gave it one in 1940. Similarly, the IAS computer is obviously important and it spawned successors, but they were all individuals who couldn’t even share software, because that really didn’t yet exist. Computers existed. Computing as a profession, even as a thought process, didn’t.

But the metaphor of “electronic brains” certainly did. Control devices during WWII were referred to both as computers and as electronic brains, as in this February 1945 article in Popular Mechanics. There are no explanations or quotes around the term, so it was already well understood, and I can find earlier cites. Although electronic, these systems were not computers as we would use the term today. Meanings change over time. The V-1 bombs were known as “robot” bombs, because robot still had a widely used meaning of remote control system, which was also the origin of Televox. Still, anyone and everybody who read the popular science magazines had this metaphor shoved in their faces repeatedly. Any competent science fiction writer, which is all Hubbard was, would have used it in a second. But he made the barest side reference to it and never went deep enough to suggest that he knew any more about the subject than reading a headline would give him.

And if you want to nitpick NitroPress, why not nitpick the Heinlein claim?

After 1950 he wrote “The Year of the Jackpot” (1952), “Project Nightmare” (1953), “Sky Lift” (1953), and “All You Zombies . . .” (1959), which by my count is four, not two.

OK, he’s wrong about Galaxy, too. Gold put Galaxy into the major leagues from issue one. *F&SF *took several years to be a true competitor instead of a venue for off-beat, quirky tales.

[JRDelirious]

@RealityChuck

Not when he started the religion. He had already introduced “dianetics” and realized that making it a religion had tax advantages.

And as a religion, you do not need to deal any more with how your claim that you have come across a “Modern Science of Mental Health” that can not just manage but outright cure a number of conditions, was being roundly denounced as utterly unsupported quackery. Now, as a religion, it becomes just a matter of belief.

[Amateur_Barbarian]

@Exapno_Mapcase

After 1950 he wrote “The Year of the Jackpot” (1952), “Project Nightmare” (1953), “Sky Lift” (1953), and “All You Zombies . . .” (1959), which by my count is four, not two.

Absolutely correct, and I am the last person who should have gotten that wrong. I can only lamely toss out in my defense that my archive notes are that the first three you list were first written, outlined or drafted far prior to publication and my thought was of writing era, not publication era. But I’ll completely concede the error.

However, I was thinking of “Zombies” and the 1962 “Searchlight,” both of which were special cases. Other than these two, Heinlein did not write any short fiction from a fresh start after 1950.

OK, he’s wrong about Galaxy, too. Gold put Galaxy into the major leagues from issue one. *F&SF *took several years to be a true competitor instead of a venue for off-beat, quirky tales.

I don’t really care to argue the relative merits of the first years of those magazines either; I don’t think I’ve said anything incorrect but you’re welcome to your opinion.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@NitroPress

Absolutely correct, and I am the last person who should have gotten that wrong. I can only lamely toss out in my defense that my archive notes are that the first three you list were first written, outlined or drafted far prior to publication and my thought was of writing era, not publication era. But I’ll completely concede the error.

However, I was thinking of “Zombies” and the 1962 “Searchlight,” both of which were special cases. Other than these two, Heinlein did not write any short fiction from a fresh start after 1950.

That’s okay. Nitpicking is just a game we play here to excess. I will note that I left out “The Man Who Traveled in Elephants” because that was ostensibly written in 1948, although published in the 1950s. But I’m always suspicious of claims about trunk stories being published without rework. It does happen, but often a surreptitious bit of improvement made possible only by the intervening years takes place.

I don’t really care to argue the relative merits of the first years of those magazines either; I don’t think I’ve said anything incorrect but you’re welcome to your opinion.

To be honest, I would have agreed with you until I checked out the contents pages of early* F&SFs*. It took a lot longer for F&SF to hit its stride than I would have thought.

That’s the real problem with this place. It forces me to double-check everything I write because I know every word will be argued or nitpicked. There are too many things you think you know or have come to believe that don’t hold up on examination. I like the challenge, though. Arguing with real experts is the best fun there is.