Post by @transform@climatejustice.social

2026-04-08 01:56 UTC

@zygmyd yes, I've seen that when researching and I'm very much in favor of skepticism as well. The key thing is that it's the RC version of Co-Counselling that has these roots, not the CCI version I'm writing about. In my article, I have a paragraph that warns about dangerous related practices. I did not include Dianetics in this paragraph as this is 2 links away and I had a character limit for the original article. But you are right, it might be worth including a sentence about that in the online version of the article now.

Replies (1)

@zygmyd@toot.cat 2026-04-08 10:08

@transform While appreciating your reply, it appears from the Wikipedia page that CCI broke off from RC which broke off from Dianetics. Co-counselling has its roots in Dianetics. I can't find anything which reports that any Dianetics-sourced techniques have achieved the same level of rigour that modern medicine has. I am referring to the transition in medicine from miasmas and humours to to the germ theory of disease and knowledge of the endocrine system, among other developments. Co-counselling deserves the same level of disbelief afforded to Dianetics. Given these two items, an increased level of scrutiny and skepticism is entirely appropriate for Co-counselling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-counselling

Open ##2116205