Talk:Engram (Dianetics)/Archive 1

Creating this page

NicholasTurnbull did a good job creating this page, I would say. I edited it. I'm willing to talk and hope my editing doesn't offend. Terryeo 16:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know you could do that. You completely took away any indication of past edits and left only your own. Heh! BTW, when introducing a word that is probably brand new to the reader, does it seem appropriate to strew their learning ground with: "In Dianetics, the secular predecessor of Scientology...." or does it make more sense to keep the ground as clean of other information as possible, so the reader can learn of the topic being introduced? Terryeo 15:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, when introducing a word that is probably brand new to the reader, does it seem appropriate to strew their learning ground with: "In Dianetics, the secular predecessor of Scientology...." or does it make more sense to keep the ground as clean of other information as possible, so the reader can learn of the topic being introduced? Terryeo 15:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC) The same problems are rearing their head here as the other Scientology related articles. I maintain that new information should be introduced to the reader as simply as possible. Several other editors see this procedure as presenting a POV and being off policy. Usually I see people saying "rv edits, NPOV" when the actuality is, my edits are simple and leave lots of room for people to put other POVs in. Instead, my edits get removed. Other people insert convoluted, difficult to follow information which does give the reader a good understanding of the subject. Heh ! This one, for example: [1] which I did. It is nothing but definitions straight out of a referenced book, combined with definitions straight off a Scientology website. All of it good, clean, easy to understand information. At that point I had presented the subject. There was plenty of room to add anything you liked. Instead, other editors destroyed good, well cited information. And what is substituted? Difficult to follow, hard to understand information. Yes, if you know the subject well you can make sense out of it. But I would maintain, for a first time reader it makes any information about "engram" not worth learning. Terryeo 15:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, isn't that neat. no discussion, just people reverting edits without any discussion at allTerryeo 18:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Why should they bother, when you've made it clear you don't actually read what other people say? How many times did you have to be told that your interpretation of Wikipedia:Introductions was not only not supported but directly contradicted by the actual contents of that page? And if you think this version is "good, clean, easy to understand information" compared to this version then you're sadly deluded. That's not even an article so much as a word collage. Good grief, an entire 'section' without even one complete sentence didn't strike you as a problem? And "easy to understand"? Ha, it is to laugh. Feast your eyes on the sparkling gem of the first sentence: "In Dianetics an engram is defined as a recording made by a person when they are partially or fully unconscious." Does your "article" explain anywhere that by "recording" you actually mean a mental record, not an audio recording or a video recording or a written record or any of the things a person not familiar with your subject would find under recording? No, it does not. And how on God's green Earth did you manage to screw up the formatting of the References section the way you did? And why didn't you correct it? You edited the article again a half-hour after the version you cited and if you'd used the preview function or just looked at the results of your editing, you'd have seen "== References ==" sticking out there and known there was something wrong. Not only did you not fix your mistake then, you restored it again about fourteen hours later without looking at it then either!

And your justification for that? "rv Antaeus Feldspar's reversion because he won't go to the discussion page to talk about a comprimise [sic]." Here's a clue for you: Wikipedia editing is not a series of things you're entitled to. You are not entitled to completely remove actually good, clean, easy to understand information in order to substitute a half-baked hodge-podge of quotes and cryptic allusions. You are, in fact, not entitled to have any of your contributions used at all. If you want them to be used, make them worth using. Did you think the article content would be determined be compromising between what you misdescribe as "good, clean, easy-to-understand information" and the version which actually meets that description, which happens to be the version you destroyed most of to substitute your own crappy version? Did you think that everyone was obligated to say "well, his changes don't actually improve the article at all, but we have to compromise between his version and the good one"? That's not the way it works. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I see. By the way, Antaeus, this is a reply to what you stated 01:37, 22 January 2006. Why do you attempt to convince me of what the software allows and disallows? LOL Nice to talk with you a little. You and I do seem to have vastly different points of view, I'll agree with that. Even though you didn't state that. Even though it might not be obvious to you. I would maintain that my version presents a more easily understood presentation of what an engram and its associated ideas are than the article you reverted does. Oddly enough you believe you won an argument about Wikipedia:Introductions while I feel "Term, topic, context, prepare the reader for what follows" is the best course. You don't believe you have communicated with me. I feel otherwise. You don't believe I read and respond to and communicate with other editors. I feel otherwise and believe I do. My version should include what a recording is. On the other hand why don't you try this experiment sometime. Find some neutral third person. Have them read my version. Have them read the version you reverted. I think you will find with my version the person will at least be willing to learn more about "engram" while with the other version the person will not want to learn anything more about "engram." And for my nickle, that's an important consideration.Terryeo 17:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You know, I don't really like rubbing it in your face? But with this sentence: Oddly enough you believe you won an argument about Wikipedia:Introductions while I feel "Term, topic, context, prepare the reader for what follows" is the best course you leave me no choice: you didn't feel "Term, topic, context, prepare the reader for what follows" was the best course, you thought it was the only legitimate choice because it was the one stated at Wikipedia:Introductions (when as we've seen, it wasn't actually ever stated there at all.) You berated multiple editors on talk pages, both article talk pages and your own, for violating what you called "Wiki policy", and which you are now trying to pretend that you only think is "the best course". You used the false premise that they were violating Wikipedia policy by not defining the term before anything else to justify repeatedly undoing their edits. It's dishonest for you to now pretend "you believe you won an argument" when you made that argument necessary by refusing to listen to anything less.

As for your suggested experiment, I did in fact do it. I submitted Nicholas's version, and your version, to a number of people, identifying them only as "Version A" and "Version B" so that no one would know which one was which and be potentially biased by that, and asked them "tell me honestly which one makes you "want to learn more" about the subject?" These are their reactions:

• "The first one, I'd say. It has all the info spelled out nice and neat with citations... The first one actually has... meat to it. the second looks like a half-assed outline a kid in high school would scrape together."
• "I'd have to go with the first one too. The second one is a little too... overloaded looking."
• "Well, Version A has...actual information... It is harder to read but actual information can be taken from it. The second, um...seems to have very little actual info on the subject? I mean, in that sense, I guess the second one "makes me want to learn more." But given that it's supposed to be an encyclopedia article that tells me what I want to know, you know."
• "The second one looks like an outline. Not an actual article."

Well, as you've guessed, Version A is Nicholas's, and Version B is yours. The experiment you proposed was done. Do they look to you like they support your idea that your version is the better one for Wikipedia? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you for doing that Antaeus. It sounds like both persons support the article you reverted and Nicholas wrote. The reason I asked if you would do that is because I did that before asking you to do it. I got a different result. I'm not really trying to be popular Antaeus, but I'm sure you understand that by now. Terryeo 18:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Reverting between versions - mediation?

Alright, alright, please, stop the reverting already! Can we please perhaps sit down and come to mutual agreement? All those editors willing to engage with me in a sort of drive-by mediation, where we can agree on a common version of the article, please indicate so below. I'll act as mediator. I am confident that we can come to a degree of agreement on this, since we are all reasonable people. Thank you! --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, and I'm glad to go with the majority. I really think the differences are not very great and more a matter of style than content. I hoped to introduce the words "engram" "mental image picture" "recording" "analytical mind" "reactive mind" and so on, in linear, easy to follow steps that are cited so a person could, if they chose to, read further. The Scientology page had a glossary, probably still does, where a person could read more about these concepts that are probably new to a reader. Again, I believe it is a matter of style and I'll go with the majority, providing we talk about it. Myself, the original makes sense but I asked 2 disinterested parties to read both versions. Terryeo 09:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, a quick check of the history of edits shows the people who are currently editing pay no attention to the discussion page. As I've state I feel that Nicholas did a good job, and its a matter of style of presentation rather than content of information issue. And myself, I don't think of that as terribly important or critical. Terryeo 21:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, Terryeo. I will thank you to take back that completely incorrect assertion that I "pay no attention to the discussion page". A quick check of the history of the edits showing that you are lying through your corrupt teeth, since not only did I pay attention to the discussion page, I performed an experiment that you suggested on the discussion page and reported back the results to you in detail. The fact that you then proceeded to lie about that and claim that I "pay no attention to this discussion page" is something I will bring up in mediation so that everyone understands the sort of slimy tactics from you good editors have had to deal with. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Umm, just above I recognized that you did that experiment and thanked you for doing it, Antaeus. "lying through my corrupt teeth?" "slimy tatics?" I don't understand. The sequence shows what happened, that I asked you to peform that experiment, that you performed that experiment and told me the results and that I thanked you for doing that experiment. On "18:55, 23 January 2006" my signed edit says thank you. That's on this page here, nearer the top of the page. Then, partly as a result of what you told me I have stated I'll go along with what the majority wish to do. I don't understand why you are saying what you are saying. Terryeo 01:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Since January 18th the only people who have edited the article are you, me, and Wikipediatrix. Since presumably you are not referring to yourself, just whom did you mean when you referred to "the people" (plural) "who are currently editing"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus, can you clean up your attitude a little? There is no reason to attempt to threaten me. I've viewed your postings here and there. While you frequently use words like "slimy" and use a threatening manner, at other times to talk more coherently. It does little good to talk like that and detracts from your message. Hasn't that all been replied to already, or are you making a new arguement? Terryeo 16:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop changing the subject, Terryeo. You made a direct accusation against specific parties; that accusation was damaging and it was provably false. Your bad behavior is catching up with you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Have a nice arguement, Antaeus. Notice some of us are working toward a consensus of opinion? Terryeo 02:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Notice some people are still changing the subject rather than owning up to their misdeeds? You can't make maliciously false allegations against other editors and then say you're "working toward a consensus of opinion". -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A hint: stop misquoting editors, stop misquoting WP policy, stop making false accusations and then acting innocent when you're proven wrong about them, and stop trying to censor articles with misleading edit summaries, and then someone just might not take such a sharp tone with you. wikipediatrix 17:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Wikipediatrix. lol. While I don't view all of my actions in quite the same way as you do, I'm willing to understand what you say. lol Terryeo 17:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas, the first sentence currently reads, "In Dianetics, the secular predecessor of Scientology, an engram is defined as a painful memory of unconsciousness stored in the stimulus-response unconscious..." The first part implies this term is no longer used in Dianetics and Scientology. This not true and reflects the general attitude at Dianetics that the article is just about Book One and not the subject from 1930 to present. Are you willing to use words that convey the idea that the subject still exists and the word engram has been used and is an integral part of Dianetics and Scientology? The page Dianetics now contains a reasonable definition of the word circa 1950, but I find the one here even more unrecognizable. This not the defintion from Book One and page 79 where "a complete recording" is articulated. The use of the terms "memory" and "unconscious" seems to pay to much homage to earlier uses of the those terms and implies the reader can distinguish the meaning there and here [in Dianetics]. I think a better approach would be to address the developement of the concept through various evolutions or simply use the latest one available and skip the history lesson. It is a recording of actual perceptions, not a memory in the usual sense of that word. Such memories would certainly be incomplete or even inaccurate. The original recording is exact and perfect. The same with "unconscious" the use here suggests the memory is of the perception of unconsciousness rather than that one of many perceptions recorded there is the perception of unconsciousness. Saying "stored in the stimulus response unconsciousness evokes a whole different situation to me than the parenthetical reactive mind. Spirit of Man 03:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas, is there a mediation in progress? I would like to see the definition cleaned up. You have been represented as "a Scientologist" writing a definition of "Engram" after being requested to do so by Antaeus. Is this true? Spirit of Man 21:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

My main problem with it is that it introduces too many words (specialized meaning words) in too short a space (one sentence). But maybe its just a matter of style. Terryeo 16:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I assume there is actually no mediation happening. I think there should be a glossary at Dianetics with links within the article to the glossary items. This fork should just be redirected there or merged with it. Spirit of Man 00:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This article isn't a fork, as has been explained to you before. There is a difference (whether you like it or not) between using different articles to cover the same subject at varying levels of detail, and creating a new article to slip in material that already failed to meet Wikipedia standards at an existing article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

is "engram to be dealt with as a theory

WP:NOR#How_to_deal_with_Wikipedia_entries_about_theories tells how to deal with theories. If "engram" is a theory then we would want to arrive at a concensus of opinion. But if it is an information intuitive in concept to a reader then we simply present it as we would apples or oranges, citing primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Which way do we go with this one? Terryeo 15:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Terreyo, I don't think the idea is intuitive at all until one uses it and sees it in action and has had success with it. It has eluded all other attempts at a description of the mind down through man's history. That includes ChrisO's tribute to Freud. [Childhood memories linked by "narrative events".] But to me this also, excludes the idea that we could rely on a concensus, from people that have not researched the idea at all nor understand it well enough to be usefull. It might be best just to merge this fork back to Dianetics as there is a better definition there at this time. It still needs some work to bring it up to date. I have a Glossary in-work for Dianetics, but have not really been interested in presenting it as every idea or presenter of ideas, just gets suppressed in the name of "NPOV" or too "glowing", so each idea presented has to altered to something suppressive enough for the most suppressive editor. An Engram is "the single source" of all aberration. It is the most valuable key for mankind to ever have a hope for long term sanity. What are the chances someone in this context [Wiki] will not have a compulsion to suppress it? Spirit of Man 00:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It is probably going to be okay with me, whatever the form / format which the information appears. A single Dianetics article and a single Scientology article would be perfectly okay with me, with no other articles at all. However, about the time one article begins too make a little sense, begins to present a subject's meaning then Boom, off go editors creating other articles. Engram, MEST, ARC, CCHR, the list goes on and on. At this time my philosophy (which admitedly is a defensive philosophy) is to get an article accurate. Especially to gets its introduction accurate. There is this bubble of liquid and every time I squeeze it so the color of the first paragraph of an article is nearly right, *poof* ot comes another bubble in another odd place. This article is such an example. BTW Spirit, that is an excellent presentation of a stable datum, but even for me (not Clear yet) I only know it as a memorized datum and don't understand it as an actual fact.Terryeo 16:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a collection of 'Scientologise' which would of course include "clear". A merger might be helpful. But whether we merge Clear, engram, reactive mind, Operating Thetan, etc. or not, as editors I believe we need to arrive at some agreement about how to treat the information which comprises Dianetics and Scientology. I want to comment too, Spirit, your posts are much easier to read and generally free of the emotionally slanted and somewhat abusive words others are using. The subjects of articles on wikipedia range from long established subjects like Laws of Motion to much newer ones. Obviously Dianetics and Scientology are realatively new. We have published Primary source information, published secondary source information (largely hostile but not all) and here and there, tertiary sources which comment about the secondary sources. Therefore Dianetics should be treated in some manner. I suggest we treat the information of Dianetics as "theory" because wikipedia has a procedure WP:NOR#How_to_deal_with_Wikipedia_entries_about_theories, that I think will get us editors into enough agreement that we can present information. At this point we are not working together, we all need some basis or foundation on which to edit with. "Theory" would be a streach for ChrisO and Feldspar, and frankly, I know otherwise, but as a means or conduit or way to edit, I think WP:NOR#How_to_deal_with_Wikipedia_entries_about_theories is our nearest common ground. What do you think? Terryeo 18:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, Spirit, but this isn't a fork. As for the rest, well, the fact that in the same post you assert that the engram "is the most valuable key for mankind to ever have a hope for long term sanity" and at the same time bemoan the fact that other editors find your descriptions too "glowing" to satisfy NPOV, speaks very eloquently. (Oh, and by the way, your presumption that your fellow editors are "people that have not researched the idea at all nor understand it well enough to be usefull [sic]" has been noted.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

How is the definition of Engram here different from the definition at Dianetics? What is your estimate of the value of "Engram"? Since you have quoted and [sic]ed my idea that you don't find it useful, please tell us in what ways you have found it useful? Have you created a Clear? or a Release? or completed a Drug Rundown on someone? or have you ever run or experienced one Engram for real? I think your experience is academic only. Spirit of Man 19:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

So basically what you're arguing here is that the only people who are qualified to have any opinion or make any judgement on whether a Dianetic "engram" even exists are those who believe that it exists and believe that they have done wonderful things with it like "creating a Clear" and "completing a Drug Rundown". Similar arguments can be and have been made for LSD; are you prepared to accept their arguments that because you have never 'freed your mind' through LSD, you can have no meaningful opinion on whether their minds are, in fact, freer? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Just straight editing per Wikipolicy, nothing special. Define the idea, present information about it, use verifications. No one expects the reader to act or react, no one expects an editor to act or react. We are simply presenting information. Terryeo 16:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus, what in your intention in editing Wikipedia? Don't take this as a personal attack, I am just wondering. --JimmyT 23:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy, messages like this on my talk page, inviting me to "kindly leave the article" make it rather difficult to take statements like "don't take this as a personal attack" at face value. My intention in editing Wikipedia is to help it become a resource of useful information. My vision of an ideal Wikipedia is one where each disputed article calmly explains, for all POVs except the truly fringe, "what do people believe on the subject?" and "why might intelligent (if sometimes fallible) people believe this to be the case?" Some people would argue that the only way to achieve that goal is clearly to let anybody post anything they want, without exception, but that would be mistaken; it's little good to raise the strength of the signal if the signal-to-noise ratio is dropping at the same time. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus, I think I have answered this personal message of yours on your talk page, but I could be mistaken as I have been doing a lot of writing. If you have a complaint about me, please let me know in my talk page or an administrator's talk space or message board. Now please reserve this talk space for messages related to the issue: is "engram to be dealt with as a theory. --JimmyT 11:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't ask a personal question, Jimmy, and then complain that the answer fails to be confined to the narrow topic of "is engram to be dealt with as a theory". -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me the idea Spirit is talking about is based on the "engram" article as it appears now. Whether to attempt to include "mental image picture" "memory" "engram" "reactive mind" analytical mind" and so on, in one article has been an area of concern for me too. Dianetics is certainly the parent article. I am not really sure we can do justice to these various concepts, each alone. But, on the other hand, the articles are extant. If the articles are included in one, parent article, I think it would be equally difficult. In presenting "engram" as an example, sure as god made little green apples, people are going to insert vast amounts of controvery of how "engram" is a word with another meaning, how other sorts of groups use the word "engram", how "engram" is only a theory and not an actuality, etc. etc. It seems to me difficult whether included in one parent article (Dianetics) or treated in several separate articles, like here. Terryeo 03:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"focused on one of its meanings"?

""engram" has long been part of the English Language, Hubbard didn't reinvent the word, but focused on one of its meanings" -- Absolutely wrong. Among the things that were not any part of the word "engram" prior to Hubbard:

• considered to be formed when the analytical mind is not fully functional, in moments of physical pain and painful emotion;
• the single source of all psychosomatic illness and aberrations of the human mind via the literal content of these engrams being imposed on to the analytical mind when similar sensory perceptions unconsciously recall the engram;
• the source of 70% of all health ailments.

To claim that all that Dianetics claims for the engram -- such as its origin in the "analytical mind", a concept that only exists in Dianetics -- is actually just "one of the meanings" of the word that Hubbard "focused on" -- is complete nonsense. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That's for sure, "engram" was part of the English Language long before Hubbard. He didn't "coin" the word and no one "owns" the word. It is in dictionarys. It has to do with memory and springs from the Greek idea of something small, "gram". Hubbard used it exactly as a common dictionary defines it. But within Dianetics the term isn't used to mean, "every memory" but only those memories which include pain of some kind. So I say, "focused on one of its meanings". Does this seem to misrepresent what Hubbard meant? I didn't mean to misrepresent anything.Terryeo 18:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Redundant Disambiguation

Engram (Dianetics) from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the concept of the engram in Dianetics and Scientology. For other uses, see Engram.

In Dianetics, the secular predecessor of Scientology, an 'engram ...

The above is what the reader sees when he comes to this page. The title says in huge bold letters the article is about "engram" as used in Dianetics. Okay, good. Then the disambiguation template tells the reader the same information again. This is redundant. A reader does not need his nose rubbed in the same information twice, it is poor writing. If the reader is interested in "engram" he need only type "engram" into the seach box to the left and he gets everything Wikipedia has on the subject which is the disambiguation page on the subject. It is just tooooo redundant, it is poor editing. Terryeo 16:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess the best we can thank you for is not insulting our intelligence with an excuse as pathetic as some of the ones you've used recently. However, since your logic applies to easily 90% of the disambiguations existing in Wikipedia and you're not trying to remove those, it's just toooooo clear that you're only playing silly buggers. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I state an opinion. My opinion is, the disambiguations are more a detraction from a good read than a contribution to a good read. Terryeo 22:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Then you'll just have to go off and start your own wiki where the use of disambiguations isn't standard operating procedure as it is here. Maybe you can call it DevTpedia, what do you think? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think, "I don't agree" would be a more straightforeward and less emotionally slanted presentation of your opinion. Terryeo 23:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Then you're incorrect, since "I don't agree" fails to convey that I believe you are really just trying to waste people's time and should be treated accordingly. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been civil in this section and addressed the article. Did I get civility in return? Did I even get reponses about the issues I raised in return? Terryeo 06:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In order to arrive at this article, a person would have to type into the search box, Dianetics (Engram), exactly like that. Else, click a link in the Scientology Template. What is the first thing a reader is presented with? This article is about the concept of the engram in Dianetics and Scientology. For other uses, see Engram. Isn't that a bit redundant? If a person Engram into the search box they get the disambiguation page, for the common person, seeking the common use of the word, they have already been to the disambiguation page and would explore to this article out of curiosity. What use the disambiguation, won't it sound more like a self-pat on the back by Wikipedia editors than a disambiguation which serves the public, to most readers? Terryeo 19:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

A person would need to type in "Engram (Dianetics)", as opposed to "Dianetics (Engram)", or to follow a link, which might be marked completely as "Dianetic engram" or some variant, or might not. Since what you seem to being having problems with here is not the usage of disambiguation notices on this page, but the entire process of disambiguation in general, why don't you go to Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation and explain to them your theory that every page with a title in the format "Name (description)" which has a notice linking to the "Name (disambiguation)" page is "a self-pat on the back by Wikipedia editors"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the factualness of the article

The first sentence ("In Dianetics and Scientology, an engram is defined as an unconsciousness, painful memory") should be taken out of the article. Scientology does not deal with engrams, only Dianetics does. Also its not an "unconsciousness, painful memory". Infact it has nothing to do with the fact whether or not the memory is painful or not, rather it deals with a time when you had been in physical pain. It would be better to just use the definition listed below that states "Dianetics defines an engram as a mental image picture which is a recording of a time of physical pain and unconsciousness. It must by definition have impact or injury as part of its content." - Truthisgreater

Since I am not getting a responce, I am asumming that there is agreement and I am going to change the page. Please post on here before reverting it back and we will talk about it. Thanks --24.131.57.181 14:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you waited less than nine hours between proposing your changes and announcing that you were "not getting a responce [sic]", you would be best advised to display more patience and more of an inclination to work with your fellow editors, rather than simply giving them orders and ultimatums. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but I've said pretty much the same thing on earlier occassions, too. Its not a brand new-to-editors datum. Terryeo 19:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

References

Can someone merge the Notes and References sections? Also, more references would be nice. 24.147.141.127 23:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference between an engram and a memory?

I don't know very much about Scientology and am trying to find out some things via Wikipedia. However, I don't find this article very helpful in explaining how an engram differs from a memory. I can see from the above that the article has been rewritten many times, so maybe the explanation I'm looking for is lost in a previous edit(?).

The current version of the article states that "an engram is defined as a faithful recording of a moment of pain and unconsciousness. . . It is not a memory". Why not? This isn't really explained.

I followed the external link to ScientologyToday.org: What is an engram?, but what this describes seems to be memories recorded by the unconscious mind. So is the only difference between an engram and a memory in the jargon that Scientology uses (e.g. "reactive mind" and "engrams" rather than accepted psychology terms such as "repressed memory" and "unconscious mind")?

If so, then I would suggest removing the rather arbitrary statement that "It is not a memory", or replacing it with something more neutral like "Scientology literature asserts that an engram is not the same as a memory".

If there is a more complex distinction between an engram and a memory, I would suggest that it be explained more fully in the article. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

star trek

Didn't Data refer to his memories as Memory or Data Engrams at various points? Is this related to the original definition? Is scientology's use related to star trek or vice versa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.208.93.135 (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Dianetics was published long before Star Trek: The Next Generation, and the term itself was coined even more years before, it seems safe to assume that Star Trek picked it up from either Hubbard or the original developer of the scientific term itself. 216.69.219.3 (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

PTSD

Are these the same things as the "deep neurological patterns" in PTSD? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 21:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, would need to do some research in WP:RS sources. -- Cirt (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this essay, which draws an analogy between Dianetics and abreaction, which has been used as a PTSD treatment, reliable enough? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 00:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine, if attributed to the original author, and clarified as the opinion of that author as a form of commentary. You could ask at WP:RSN about it if there is a question. -- Cirt (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)