Scientology Study Tech In The Real World

[HelluvaHoax!]

I was never 'attacked' by a course supe for disagreement. It is too bad if that was your own experience. That was not a universal experience.

Additionally what you offer is clearly an example of how the cult has traditionally implemented the tech in an abusive fashion. That is completely consistent with my remarks.

My remarks stand as made.
Mark A. Baker

Absurd non-sequitur spin response to Gadfly's post. You obviously have no answer to the crystal clear points he made about Scientology's abusive "tech".

You would make more progress on your "bridge" if you tried to concentrate more on what people are actually saying, rather than on proving yourself right.

At least your tortured sophistry in defense of "the tech" has a certain value as a reminder of the inherently manipulative nature of Scientology. The next time you go for a session, take a look at that big sign at the front gate and see if it reminds you of anything--

TECH MACHT FREI

[Gottabrain]

The purpose of Scientology MU clearing "tech" is to stop you from disagreeing with the concept being put forward and to reinforce the brainwashing.

If you disagree, ask a "how can that be" question, or are bored enough to yawn, you are forced to find your MU to shut/wake you up.

Do this often enough and you start to believe that the problem lies with you and not the twaddle being forced down your throat.

By the time you have word cleared half of the dictionary, you are ready to accept anything.

If you disagree with what I have said in the above paragraphs, please find your MU.

LTG

Yes, the disagreement question can hit the road, so can looking up every definition.
When I use a dictionary now, I find the definition that fits.

Derivations are helpful in some professions that use a lot of Latin, like medical.

For little words, usually a person didn't understand grammar in the first place. Clear up their use in grammar and there is no need to look up every definition of "if" unless your field is LAW.

[Mirele]

I always get a kick when I hear those actual "English language" words that only Scientologists use. I know there are at least 3 or 4 that I always catch myself using, but the only one I can think of right now is "disabused". I have never in my entire life heard a non-Scn say that word. And I've never met a Scientologist who didn't say that word. Can anyone think of other words like this? I know there's at least a few more. Oh yeah... "dilettante". I actually say that word sometimes in real life, like a man from another planet or something. In fact, aren't both those words in KSW, the most word cleared document in Scientology?

I've never been in Scientology, but I've used the word "dilettante" a lot, most often in reference to myself. I consider myself a dilettante of knowledge, in that I know a lot of things, but I don't have a DEEP knowledge of them. And yes, it's a personal criticism of myself. However, I also realize that had I been born 200 years ago and male, I'd be a Renaissance man. Now, I can just barely keep up with a very few things.

[EP - Ethics Particle]

FWIW department!

I had great success W/Cing fellow students, particularly other nationalities and youngsters using my own "personal know-best" blend of M-7, M-9 and covert explanation.

The "word clearee" without fail really enjoyed it and I got pretty good at making it look like I was really doing it whatever "cookbook way" we were supposed to be using.

It seems to me that really taking an interest in and liking the person you are working with may be the real key.

Working with others and helping them was something I truly enjoyed while I was "in" and had some hope and/or belief (jeeze, I can hardly type "and/or" without cracking up laughing!) that there was value in understanding the "materials"...but when that was gone, soon I was too.

Shiela, I just wanted to add something to this excellent thread you started and hope to meet you one day to swap tales...or maybe just hang out and watch a sunset or some similar happening!

With love,

Mike Horton aka here as EP

[Div6]

I offered more than a single example. Please reread the post and provide a few examples that I asked for. Okay? Though I very much doubt that you will (or even can).

Having been a "zealot of Standard Tech" as a course sup and a word clearer, I gotta say that the most challenging part of the job was applying the points from the supervisor's code that said:

2. The Supervisor should invalidate a student’s mistake ruthlessly and use good ARC while doing it.

3. The Supervisor should remain in good ARC with his students at all times while they are performing training activities.

4. The Supervisor at all times must have a high tolerance of stupidity in his students and must be willing to repeat any datum not understood as many times as necessary for the student to understand and acquire reality on the datum.

It could be quite a grueling task at times. I suppose all of that went by the boards with GAT, where robotic "stepford" auditors were trained NOT to listen, and additives were entered in to the mix to the point that charge was being created, pc's over-restimulated, and F\N's killed.

[Gottabrain]

FWIW department!

I had great success W/Cing fellow students, particularly other nationalities and youngsters using my own "personal know-best" blend of M-7, M-9 and covert explanation.

The "word clearee" without fail really enjoyed it and I got pretty good at making it look like I was really doing it whatever "cookbook way" we were supposed to be using.

It seems to me that really taking an interest in and liking the person you are working with may be the real key.

Working with others and helping them was something I truly enjoyed while I was "in" and had some hope and/or belief (jeeze, I can hardly type "and/or" without cracking up laughing!) that there was value in understanding the "materials"...but when that was gone, soon I was too.

Shiela, I just wanted to add something to this excellent thread you started and hope to meet you one day to swap tales...or maybe just hang out and watch a sunset or some similar happening!

With love,

Mike Horton aka here as EP

Thanks, Mike! And Happy Australia Day! Yes, we HAVE to get together for goodness sakes... what in the world is taking us so long? PM me!

Explaining words and definitions works just fine, doesn't it? Especially on foreigners or children, though there are some barely literate adults that need it, too.

Gottabrain, YOU gottabrain! Thanks for bringing up this topic. Years ago, I started a reading program for inner city grades 4-6, and linked with the public school system to teach peer tutoring. After a quick verbal test (provided by a public school reading teacher) to establish (estimate) the child's reading level, I paired them into comparable peers and explained how to do reading-a-loud word clearing. No dictionaries were used unless necessary. The peer would find the word stumbled upon, and explain the word, context, punctuation, etc. It was easy, but the right why had to be found... not simply Find your mu, but What exactly the student didn't get... many times it was punctuation, many times context. This was the tech that I found worked with them. Teaching the 3 barriers was too theoretical and they could care less. Also, they didn't get demonstration unless it was acted out (as in a scene).

Hi Apollo John! Great post. You're just brilliant yourself. And great to hear from you!

THANK YOU for providing the ONE post representing a study of Scientology Study Tech on disadvantaged children.

That is fascinating that they preferred acting/scene demonstration and I'm grateful that you provided the info. Also that they stumbled ON the word or that part of the sentence (as RogerB pointed out - it is not "just prior").

The lack of understanding punctuation is no surprise, but the fact this, plus understanding context (sentence structure, putting together the parts of the sentence into a complete thought) came up frequently is quite revealing, isn't it? When I tutored, I also spent a lot of time teaching basic English and punctuation.

What you said about difficulty understanding context also opens up many more questions - could this have been caused by a lack of stimulation as young children? We know that exposing young children to simple problems or items stimulates their learning abilities. Putting together a complex thought or several steps of a process is a mental ability. What do you think may have affected this? Or could it have been simply that they hadn't eaten breakfast?

I think misunderstanding punctuation and basic English is a big reason kids misspell these days, too. Any that would spell aren't as are'nt wouldn't understand that the ' represents missing letter or letter(s).

My experience is that some people learn better by being talked to (lecture hall, tape lecture), some people learn in pieces and need the action associated with the learning to be available and to interleave with the theoretical.

The essay does have an excellent point on the actual effect of "punishing" students with reversing their progress and forcing them into a galaxy of dictionaries. It would definitely channel students to accept and understand the material as correc and be the first steps in establishing control...

This is a terrific insight.

There are two REAL differences between men and women (I majored in Psychology and Sociology):

One is that only 1 in 4 women can easily picture objects in their minds 3-dimensionally (i.e., immediately grasping a map in one's mind), whereas 3 of 4 men can do this.

The second is that 3 of 4 women can easily picture things from a written description, but only 1 of 4 men can do this. That is why men receive 5 extra points on the standard IQ test. (Sorry, guys, but many of you are handicapped here even if there are a lot of poor women drivers. )

Interesting, ay?

Then there is the "preferred senses" by which a person learns. I once read a book, years ago, about "learning a man's secret language". The book was written based on the concept of each person having a preferred sense (and I'd love to see some of those studies here).

1) Most men are "visuals". They understand things primarily through sight, and sayings like, "I see what you mean" rather than "I hear what you're saying" have much more impact. They also speak this way.

2) Another type of person (men/women) prefers auditory. This person learns best with recitation, reading aloud and memory tricks with tunes (your lecture person). This type of person is also highly sensitive to unpleasant, distracting noises.

3) Another type of person is the "feeling/understanding" person. Personal contact and having the person care about them is highly important.

WHICH person or type of learning is preferred is easy to tell by the words they use in their normal speech, whether they are geared to hearing, sight or feeling.

They don't teach that in Scientology, not a very complete tech.

[Dulloldfart]

Having been a "zealot of Standard Tech" as a course sup and a word clearer, I gotta say that the most challenging part of the job was applying the points from the supervisor's code that said:

<snip>
4. The Supervisor at all times must have a high tolerance of stupidity in his students and must be willing to repeat any datum not understood as many times as necessary for the student to understand and acquire reality on the datum.

I used to not look too closely at that one. I got the most use out of it by saying "Read it again" when a student didn't get something and to my mind should have done. And often just reading it again, sometimes a few times, was all it took for it to be understood. If I thought there was something missing from the material or an m/u I would address that, but if I couldn't see any reason why he didn't get it I would do the "Read it again" trick and it worked surprisingly well.

However, looking at point 4 carefully now, it reminds me of literally flogging slaves until they do what you want and don't dare do anything else. It's KSW arrogance through and through, but it's been that exact same wording since 1957 (it said "instructor" instead of "supervisor.")

Paul

[Rene Descartes]

Yes, or more simply it can just be looked at as 'one step at a time'.


Mark A. Baker

Well I say "not so". A very coordinated athlete is not necessarily limited to learning a new technique "one step at a time".

The same goes for a very skilled musician.

I think you are getting Hubbard confused with the Psychiatrist that Richard Dreyfuss played in the What About Bob movie. He wrote a book called "Baby Steps".

Rd00

[Rene Descartes]

Gadfly,

In all fairness to Mr Baker perhaps we could say that a Course Sup might very well not attack the student.

But if the student continues to be disruptive bogged down student that course sup will be required to send that disruptive bogged down student to Qual where the student can be attacked by a real professional.

And Mr Baker, in all fairness to Gadfly, the course sup might very well attack the student, however if he is sly about it he will wait till the Qual Sec makes his rounds to do the course room checklist and tear into the disruptive bogged down student then.

And in all fairness to anyone who disagrees with both of you or neither of you I think the student should hide some of the more important courseroom materials to get people from Tech sent to cramming and when he does do that he should come up tone and feel better and find that he can move through the materials very quick now since that suppresive course sup is now in Cramming and the student can take that as a big win because he applied the "always attack never defend" concept to its fullest without breaking the law.

HIP HIP HOORAY!

Rd00

Rd00

[Gadfly]

Well I say "not so". A very coordinated athlete is not necessarily limited to learning a new technique "one step at a time".

The same goes for a very skilled musician.

I think you are getting Hubbard confused with the Psychiatrist that Richard Dreyfuss played in the What About Bob movie. He wrote a book called "Baby Steps".

Rd00

That was a GREAT movie!

And, by the way, speaking of musicians, all of Hubbard's ridiculous "tech" on "art" and "music" and "gradients" will NEVER a "great musician" make.

Probably the most accurate thing Hubbard ever said about getting good at things involves what he said about writing, somewhere in the Study Tapes. If you want to be a good writer, then write - and write and write. To get good at anything, one needs to do it over and over and over - and even then, despite the practice and the "study", and even with excellent use of "study tech", some "have it" and some don't, and endless practice still won't result in "brilliance".

There are MANY factors involved in getting good at something, and Study Tech covers only a very little of it (and it does so confusedly and even quite screwed up in some ways).

I mean Mozart and Bach did fine without Hubbard's Study Tech. I suspect that many many many MORE musicians attained very high levels of skill and expertise WITHOUT Hubbard's "study tech". Would they have been "better" with Hubbard's "study tech" - I somehow very much doubt it.

And, despite Hubbard's great familiarity with his "study tech", he was a horrid musician.