I well recall lazy ‘Scientology’ thinking: any situation in life diagnosed with total certainty. Situation x must necessarily be because of y; b happening means d; c signifies k. No alternate possibilities—unless two or three exclusive choices: s is f, v, or z; ‘maybe’ a sign of insanity.

I write ‘Scientology’ because I’m not convinced this is sort of thinking is intrinsic to Scientology philosophy—it was cultural during my time associating with the Church of Scientology, in myself and other participants I interacted with.

How many folks engaging in commentary on all things ‘Scientology’ still employ lazy ‘Scientology’ thinking? How many assertions against all things ‘Scientology’ have multiple potential—and non-mutually-exclusive; overlapping—factors shunned in chasing a single (usually pejorative) explanation?

Deep work takes some thinking.