Page 1 of 10 12345678910 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 92

Thread: The Tone Scale: How Valid Is It?

  1. #1
    Squirrel Extraordinaire Dulloldfart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    North-East England
    Posts
    23,892

    Default The Tone Scale: How Valid Is It?

    Let's just take the main levels of the 0-4 bit, and skip the, er, non-human range. So:

    [skipped]
    4.0 Enthusiasm
    3.5 Cheerfulness
    3.0 Conservatism
    2.5 Boredom
    2.0 Antagonism
    1.5 Anger
    1.1 Covert Hostility
    1.0 Fear
    0.5 Grief
    0.05 Apathy
    [skipped]

    Hubbard said he derived the order from observing the emotions people went through in Dianetic auditing, sometimes so fast that way-stops get missed; someone said he pulled it out of his ass. Its provenance doesn't really matter. He said the numbers are an approximation, and not meant to signify too much.

    He said there's a "volume" quality, sort of at right angles to the scale. So around the 1.0 fear level, a little bit of volume is anxiety, and a lot of volume is terror.

    What do I mean by "how valid is it?" Let's see. I just want to stick to its main characteristics as it, not delve into discussing the merits of everything he ever said about it.

    The sequence, ignoring the supposed observability in processing, is supposed to show increasing aliveness, potential for survival, general desirability. So on an individual level, life would generally look better if one is cheerful than if one is grieving (not so hard to accept); but similarly, life should generally look better if one is bored than being antagonistic (not so easy to accept, especially if one enjoys being antagonistic!). There's also the factor of emotion being applicable to the circumstances, so it's not as if grief is never merited.

    I say individual level because some relatively "low-toned" people seem to accomplish a lot more than some relatively "high-toned" ones.

    Anyway . . . .

    1. Are these emotions?
    2. Are they readily observable in people?
    3. Does the sequence seem correct, in that on a personal level does an emotion higher on this scale seem preferable to one lower down? [This question is complicated by Hubbard's idea that someone chronically above 2.0 is survival-oriented, and someone chronically below 2.0 is death-oriented]
    4. How about the Chart of Human Evaluation?


    I'll give my own answers, just to start the ball rolling.

    1. Yes
    2. Yes.
    Those first two aren't meant to be trick questions. I think the answers are obvious, but I spent so many years in Scn and the tone scale is such a basic Scn thing, who knows?!
    3. I haven't done thousands of hours of auditing and taken careful note of the pcs' emotional tone. I know one was supposed to note it on the worksheets where it changed, but .... Personally, the sequence seems ok.
    4. Heh. That's a vast, open-ended question! To be discussed, shall we say.

    Paul
    PaulsRobot Iconic now available for use at www.PaulsRobot2.com. With Auto-Report. Video here. Introductory post here. Debug post here. Dipoles post here.

  2. Likes Hypatia liked this post
  3. #2
    Gold Meritorious Patron TheOriginalBigBlue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,070

    Default Re: The Tone Scale: How Valid Is It?

    So, maybe the proof that the Tone Scale works is after enough Scientology people come up-tone enough to realize it is a scam and leave?

  4. Likes Irayam liked this post
    LOL! Irayam laughed at this post
  5. #3
    Gold Meritorious Sponsor HelluvaHoax!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    22,112

    Default Re: The Tone Scale: How Valid Is It?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dulloldfart View Post
    Let's just take the main levels of the 0-4 bit, and skip the, er, non-human range. So:

    [skipped]
    4.0 Enthusiasm
    3.5 Cheerfulness
    3.0 Conservatism
    2.5 Boredom
    2.0 Antagonism
    1.5 Anger
    1.1 Covert Hostility
    1.0 Fear
    0.5 Grief
    0.05 Apathy
    [skipped]

    Hubbard said he derived the order from observing the emotions people went through in Dianetic auditing, sometimes so fast that way-stops get missed; someone said he pulled it out of his ass. Its provenance doesn't really matter. He said the numbers are an approximation, and not meant to signify too much.

    He said there's a "volume" quality, sort of at right angles to the scale. So around the 1.0 fear level, a little bit of volume is anxiety, and a lot of volume is terror.

    What do I mean by "how valid is it?" Let's see. I just want to stick to its main characteristics as it, not delve into discussing the merits of everything he ever said about it.

    The sequence, ignoring the supposed observability in processing, is supposed to show increasing aliveness, potential for survival, general desirability. So on an individual level, life would generally look better if one is cheerful than if one is grieving (not so hard to accept); but similarly, life should generally look better if one is bored than being antagonistic (not so easy to accept, especially if one enjoys being antagonistic!). There's also the factor of emotion being applicable to the circumstances, so it's not as if grief is never merited.

    I say individual level because some relatively "low-toned" people seem to accomplish a lot more than some relatively "high-toned" ones.

    Anyway . . . .

    1. Are these emotions?
    2. Are they readily observable in people?
    3. Does the sequence seem correct, in that on a personal level does an emotion higher on this scale seem preferable to one lower down? [This question is complicated by Hubbard's idea that someone chronically above 2.0 is survival-oriented, and someone chronically below 2.0 is death-oriented]
    4. How about the Chart of Human Evaluation?


    I'll give my own answers, just to start the ball rolling.

    1. Yes
    2. Yes.
    Those first two aren't meant to be trick questions. I think the answers are obvious, but I spent so many years in Scn and the tone scale is such a basic Scn thing, who knows?!
    3. I haven't done thousands of hours of auditing and taken careful note of the pcs' emotional tone. I know one was supposed to note it on the worksheets where it changed, but .... Personally, the sequence seems ok.
    4. Heh. That's a vast, open-ended question! To be discussed, shall we say.

    Paul
    That's an excellent start.

    Add to that another essential part of the Hubbard Rhetorical Triangle meant to further muddy the water--so that there is always a convenient explanation for those times when REALITY does not match Hubbard's DELUSIONAL scripture. Example:

    NEW SCIENTOLOGIST
    Hey Billy, I've noticed that you have been
    really downtone recently.

    BILLY BLOWDOWN
    Oh? What makes you think that?

    NEW SCIENTOLOGIST
    Well, I was obnosing you on course the past
    five days and you have been really smiley, but at
    the same time you are doing really mean things.
    Isn't that "covert hostility" on the tone scale?

    BILLY BLOWDOWN
    Oh, my goodness no! I am solidly in exhilaration--that's
    eight-point-zero on the tone scale, ya know! What's confusing
    you is that Ron states that each individual tone level has all of the
    harmonics of every other tone level--within it!


    NEW SCIENTOLOGIST
    Wuttttttt? That's really weird!
    Are you sure about that?

    BILLY BLOWDOWN
    Absolute certainty!
    I'm totally exhilarated,
    but in a 1.1 way.

    NEW SCIENTOLOGIST
    I don't know. . .
    that sounds so stupid, LOL.
    You think it might be my study case
    keying in?

    BILLY BLOWDOWN
    Yeah, definitely. Ron says low-toned people who can't
    perceive and "have" the total uptone-ness of OTs just
    need to work it out in clay until you come up
    the tone scale and feel good about it.



    Last edited by HelluvaHoax!; 7th May 2017 at 09:43 PM.
    ________________________

    Scientology literally saved my life! Without Ron's books I would have frozen to death!!! (see avatar)

    Scientology in one word? HelluvaHoax!

    I never felt as free as when I freed myself from "Total Freedom".

    For offended Scientologists reading this blasphemy about L. Ron Hubbard---my apologies for talking about real life without lying to you, like Scientology, with goo-goo theta-talk. I know you don't have a floating needle right now. You're not supposed to.

  6. Likes xseaorguk liked this post
    LOL! Operating DB laughed at this post
  7. #4
    Silver Meritorious Patron
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Here, now.
    Posts
    1,397

    Default Re: The Tone Scale: How Valid Is It?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dulloldfart View Post

    1. Are these emotions?
    2. Are they readily observable in people?
    3. Does the sequence seem correct, in that on a personal level does an emotion higher on this scale seem preferable to one lower down? [This question is complicated by Hubbard's idea that someone chronically above 2.0 is survival-oriented, and someone chronically below 2.0 is death-oriented]
    4. How about the Chart of Human Evaluation?


    Paul
    1. Meaningless question. Are these specific emotions that are the same for everyone. When they say "Antagonism", does that mean the same "antagonism" of someone else? I doubt it.
    2. Sure, except for the determination, as above, as to how each person experiences each emotion and what it is called. What one "observes" may have absolutely nothing to do with what the other person is experiencing.
    3. No. What on earth gives anyone the idea that there is a "sequence" to emotions -- that you must experience each in turn as you move from one emotion to another. Not to mention the numbers!! Someone please explain what the numbers are based on and how someone else could verify whatever they mean?
    4. Yeah, no thanks.

  8. Thanks AngeloV, Gizmo, Dulloldfart says "thank you" for this post
    Likes JBWriter, JustSheila liked this post
  9. #5

    Default Re: The Tone Scale: How Valid Is It?

    The whole thing kind of falls apart when you see CEO's earning millions of dollars a year by aggressively destroying manufacturing, jobs, companies, employee work benefits, longevity pay, and full-time jobs while they make the stocks go up by buying out other companies to do the same thing again and never actually managing a company.

    Is that Action?
    Enthusiasm?
    Covert Hostility?
    Anger?
    Antagonism?

    I guess even a sociopath can be way uptone and high survival, so that negates the Chart of Human Evaluation, too. Aggressive sociopaths and other vicious predators often rise to the top ranks of companies, but their success and the Tone Scale and Chart of Human Evaluation have nothing to do with each other.
    "Looking back on it I think I got these gains only because the processing made me self reflect and try to repair the damage done by it. So I made gains in spite of Scientology not because of it. It's better to be hated for who you are than loved for who you are not."

    - Cleared Cannibal


  10. Thanks Dulloldfart, tesseract says "thank you" for this post
    Likes xseaorguk liked this post
  11. #6
    Silver Meritorious Patron George Layton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    1,374

    Default Re: The Tone Scale: How Valid Is It?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dulloldfart View Post
    Let's just take the main levels of the 0-4 bit, and skip the, er, non-human range. So:

    [skipped]
    4.0 Enthusiasm
    3.5 Cheerfulness
    3.0 Conservatism
    2.5 Boredom
    2.0 Antagonism
    1.5 Anger
    1.1 Covert Hostility
    1.0 Fear
    0.5 Grief
    0.05 Apathy
    [skipped]

    Hubbard said he derived the order from observing the emotions people went through in Dianetic auditing, sometimes so fast that way-stops get missed; someone said he pulled it out of his ass. Its provenance doesn't really matter. He said the numbers are an approximation, and not meant to signify too much.

    He said there's a "volume" quality, sort of at right angles to the scale. So around the 1.0 fear level, a little bit of volume is anxiety, and a lot of volume is terror.

    What do I mean by "how valid is it?" Let's see. I just want to stick to its main characteristics as it, not delve into discussing the merits of everything he ever said about it.

    The sequence, ignoring the supposed observability in processing, is supposed to show increasing aliveness, potential for survival, general desirability. So on an individual level, life would generally look better if one is cheerful than if one is grieving (not so hard to accept); but similarly, life should generally look better if one is bored than being antagonistic (not so easy to accept, especially if one enjoys being antagonistic!). There's also the factor of emotion being applicable to the circumstances, so it's not as if grief is never merited.

    I say individual level because some relatively "low-toned" people seem to accomplish a lot more than some relatively "high-toned" ones.

    Anyway . . . .

    1. Are these emotions?
    2. Are they readily observable in people?
    3. Does the sequence seem correct, in that on a personal level does an emotion higher on this scale seem preferable to one lower down? [This question is complicated by Hubbard's idea that someone chronically above 2.0 is survival-oriented, and someone chronically below 2.0 is death-oriented]
    4. How about the Chart of Human Evaluation?


    I'll give my own answers, just to start the ball rolling.

    1. Yes
    2. Yes.
    Those first two aren't meant to be trick questions. I think the answers are obvious, but I spent so many years in Scn and the tone scale is such a basic Scn thing, who knows?!
    3. I haven't done thousands of hours of auditing and taken careful note of the pcs' emotional tone. I know one was supposed to note it on the worksheets where it changed, but .... Personally, the sequence seems ok.
    4. Heh. That's a vast, open-ended question! To be discussed, shall we say.

    Paul
    I feel a bit covertly hostile asking this but what happened to sympathy?
    Each time I spot hypocrisy, it turns around and points at me.

  12. LOL! Jump, Gizmo laughed at this post
  13. #7
    Squirrel Extraordinaire Dulloldfart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    North-East England
    Posts
    23,892

    Default Re: The Tone Scale: How Valid Is It?

    Quote Originally Posted by George Layton View Post
    I feel a bit covertly hostile asking this but what happened to sympathy?
    I just did it in 0.5 steps (except for 0.05 instead of 0.0), and added in 1.1 since it gets so much air-play.

    If I hadn't spent so many hours learning the Expanded Tone Scale verbatim, and was asked where to slot "sympathy" in, I don't think I'd have a clue. There are quite a few tones on the expanded scale like that, even between 0-4.

    Paul
    PaulsRobot Iconic now available for use at www.PaulsRobot2.com. With Auto-Report. Video here. Introductory post here. Debug post here. Dipoles post here.

  14. #8
    Crusader RogerB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    7,510

    Default Re: The Tone Scale: How Valid Is It?

    Quote Originally Posted by JustSheila View Post
    The whole thing kind of falls apart when you see CEO's earning millions of dollars a year by aggressively destroying manufacturing, jobs, companies, employee work benefits, longevity pay, and full-time jobs while they make the stocks go up by buying out other companies to do the same thing again and never actually managing a company.

    Is that Action?
    Enthusiasm?
    Covert Hostility?
    Anger?
    Antagonism?

    I guess even a sociopath can be way uptone and high survival, so that negates the Chart of Human Evaluation, too. Aggressive sociopaths and other vicious predators often rise to the top ranks of companies, but their success and the Tone Scale and Chart of Human Evaluation have nothing to do with each other.
    Ummmm, didn't the Hubbs say something about a psycho can be enthusiastic, even excited about being destructive??
    Life is supposed to be enjoyed, Mate!

    Don't show me the money . . . give me the TRUTH!
    Visit: http://knowledgism-practice-group.org

  15. Thanks JustSheila, TheOriginalBigBlue, Cat's Squirrel says "thank you" for this post
  16. #9
    Gold Meritorious Patron
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,731

    Default Re: The Tone Scale: How Valid Is It?

    Quote Originally Posted by JustSheila View Post
    The whole thing kind of falls apart when you see CEO's earning millions of dollars a year by aggressively destroying manufacturing, jobs, companies, employee work benefits, longevity pay, and full-time jobs while they make the stocks go up by buying out other companies to do the same thing again and never actually managing a company.

    Is that Action?
    Enthusiasm?
    Covert Hostility?
    Anger?
    Antagonism?

    I guess even a sociopath can be way uptone and high survival, so that negates the Chart of Human Evaluation, too. Aggressive sociopaths and other vicious predators often rise to the top ranks of companies, but their success and the Tone Scale and Chart of Human Evaluation have nothing to do with each other.
    From what I remember about *sociopathy, sociopaths have an emotionally barren inner life, partly because they cannot feel empathy for others; although they can experience states of intense excitement, they do not experience the highly differentiated emotional states that normal people report. Also, their suicide rate is above average (I know, get out the violins), which isn't very pro-survival.

    Having said that, if the Tone Scale is a simplistic way at looking at one's emotional life it's possible that you're right that they can be uptone by that yardstick.

    *I'm assuming that sociopathy = psychopathy here; others may disagree.
    "Life constantly changes. Some of the changes we like, some we hate, but it keeps changing."

    - Bo Lozoff

    "Dream more, learn more, care more and be more.”

    - Dolly Parton

  17. Thanks JustSheila says "thank you" for this post
  18. #10
    Crusader RogerB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    7,510

    Default Re: The Tone Scale: How Valid Is It?

    For the sake of "discussion" it seems, Paul posted:

    Anyway . . . .


    1. Are these emotions?
    2. Are they readily observable in people?
    3. Does the sequence seem correct, in that on a personal level does an emotion higher on this scale seem preferable to one lower down? [This question is complicated by Hubbard's idea that someone chronically above 2.0 is survival-oriented, and someone chronically below 2.0 is death-oriented]
    4. How about the Chart of Human Evaluation?



    I'll give my own answers, just to start the ball rolling.

    1. Yes
    2. Yes.
    Those first two aren't meant to be trick questions. I think the answers are obvious, but I spent so many years in Scn and the tone scale is such a basic Scn thing, who knows?!
    3. I haven't done thousands of hours of auditing and taken careful note of the pcs' emotional tone. I know one was supposed to note it on the worksheets where it changed, but .... Personally, the sequence seems ok.
    4. Heh. That's a vast, open-ended question! To be discussed, shall we say.
    *****


    My answers:
    1) again Hubbard screwed up by pinching and not understanding that which he pinched from. "Emotion" was a big subject in the day he "researched" psychology . . . so, a better view of it is that they are not purely only "emotions." . . . closer, better investigation reveals they are MOODS and actually a combination of emotion and attitude.

    2) Yes

    3) Yes, relatively correct in the context of how these conditions of relationship to "life" a person expresses relate or align to each other . . . but Hubbard's additives and explanations are erroneous examples of his effort to appear "scientific."

    4) Ummmm, heh indeed.



    Life is supposed to be enjoyed, Mate!

    Don't show me the money . . . give me the TRUTH!
    Visit: http://knowledgism-practice-group.org

  19. Thanks JustSheila, Dulloldfart says "thank you" for this post
Page 1 of 10 12345678910 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Tone Scale
    By Björkist in forum Scientology Technology
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 21st April 2014, 06:17 PM
  2. bottom of the tone scale
    By petal in forum Scientology Technology
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 3rd September 2013, 05:00 PM
  3. OT 7 below 0.0 on the tone scale
    By renegade in forum Evaluating and Criticising Scientology
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 7th August 2013, 12:02 PM
  4. The Tone Scale
    By grundy in forum Grundy's Guide to Scientology
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 20th March 2013, 11:10 PM
  5. Where does the Tone Scale come from
    By ScnRebel in forum Scientology Technology
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 22nd July 2009, 01:18 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •