Study Technology: Power of Choice

[Dulloldfart]

well, everyone has opinions....thank you for yours, Im writing this in hopes your dismissal does not discourage others from even looking at the materials that HERE
http://www.lermanet.com/exit/studytech/

seems your opinion is counter to Flag's because they (A wise arbitration at FLB) ruled in favor of a guy that ran a bunch of schools using supposed LRH STUDY tech... when he introduced those pages... he was deemed NOT liable for wise 10 percents for his chain of english schools in Hungary or somewhere... that story is also in the directory as a PDF but you would have had to read the stuff in the directory.

Of course after agreeing that he didn't owe those 10%'s they declared him an SP....and began fair gaming him

There is a write-up by Randy Payne on his schools here (it's a document, not a web page). It doesn't mention the lady. He says he objected to paying the CofS 10% of his schools' gross income (GI was $1 million a year) because 99% of the materials he used were his own trademarked ones. Do you have any documentation — like from Randy — to support your statement?

As for people forming their own opinions, I agree they should look and see for themselves how much Virginia Waddy did or didn't publish that is similar to Study Tech.

Paul

 

[Lermanet_com]

well, that is how Randy Payne phrased it... "I showed them Virginia Waddy.." and ended up paying no wise 10%. He is the "source" for Virginia Waddy ...

 

[Dulloldfart]

well, that is how Randy Payne phrased it... "I showed them Virginia Waddy.." and ended up paying no wise 10%. He is the "source" for Virginia Waddy ...

If that is so, then good for him. I think he conned them in that case, because Virginia Waddy's work is, I would say, less than 10% of Study Tech.

(Of course he shouldn't have had to pay 10% to WISE or ABLE as that is simply extortion.)

Paul

 

[Vinaire]

In several places online I have seen people say they were forced to accept something Hubbard said, and that this is "Study Tech." I'm not challenging that such happens, but it isn't study tech, even if someone says it is!

From Hubbard's lecture EDUCATION, 25 October 1956:

Now, it's a sure test of a teacher whether he knows his stuff or not, the number of data which he insists on everyone assimilating without question. If he insists that a great number of data be assimilated without further analysis or question in any way, shape or form, we know this boy doesn't know his business. He's scared. Somehow or another he feels that nobody must be permitted to examine these data. So he's doing something else. He's doing something else.

Now, educationally, it is absolutely necessary for the teacher to preserve the power of choice of the student over the data which he is taught. And if it is not in agreement with the experience of the student, and will not be found to be true in the environment of the student, he permits the student to examine
this and say so, and operate accordingly. Only in this wise would you have anything used or useful.​

That lecture is part of study tech, on the courses, or at least it used to be.

I know the Method 4 word clearing HCOB says if you disagree with something Hubbard wrote you have a prior misunderstood, but that it is just a rote (stupid) explanation. If a sup or word clearer ran that on you then they didn't understand what Hubbard said about power of choice in my quote above.

Paul

Here is a story from WHAT BUDDHA TAUGHT by Walpola Rahula:

The Buddha once visited a small town called Kesaputta in the kingdom of Kosala. The inhabitants of this town were known by the common name Kalama. When they heard that the Buddha in their town, the Kalama paid him a visit, and told him:

'Sir, there are some recluses and brahmanas who visit Kesaputta. They explain and illumine only their own doctrines, and despise, condemn and spurn others' doctrines. Then come other recluses and brahmanas, and they, too, in their turn, explain and illumine only their own doctrines, and despise, condemn and spurn others' doctrines. But, for us, Sir, we have always doubt and perplexity as to who among these venerable recluses and brahmanas spoke the truth, and who spoke falsehood.'

Then the Buddha gave them this advice, unique in the history of religions:

'Yes, Kalamas, it is proper that you have doubt, that you have perplexity, for a doubt has arisen in a matter which is doubtful. Now, look you Kalamas, do not be led by reports, or tradition, or hearsay. Be not led by the authority of religious texts, nor by mere logic or inference, nor by considering appearances, nor by the delight in speculative opinions, nor by seeming possibilities, nor by the idea: ‘this is our teacher.’ But, O Kalamas, when you know for yourselves that certain things are unwholesome, and wrong, and bad, then give them up… And when you know for yourselves that certain things are wholesome and good, then accept them and follow them.

The Buddha went even further. He told the bhikkus that a disciple should examine even the Tathagata (Buddha) himself, so that he (the disciple) might be fully convinced of the true value of the teacher whom he followed.

.

 

[AnonyMary]

In several places online I have seen people say they were forced to accept something Hubbard said, and that this is "Study Tech." I'm not challenging that such happens, but it isn't study tech, even if someone says it is!

From Hubbard's lecture EDUCATION, 25 October 1956:

Now, it's a sure test of a teacher whether he knows his stuff or not, the number of data which he insists on everyone assimilating without question. If he insists that a great number of data be assimilated without further analysis or question in any way, shape or form, we know this boy doesn't know his business. He's scared. Somehow or another he feels that nobody must be permitted to examine these data. So he's doing something else. He's doing something else.

Now, educationally, it is absolutely necessary for the teacher to preserve the power of choice of the student over the data which he is taught. And if it is not in agreement with the experience of the student, and will not be found to be true in the environment of the student, he permits the student to examine
this and say so, and operate accordingly. Only in this wise would you have anything used or useful.​

That lecture is part of study tech, on the courses, or at least it used to be.

I know the Method 4 word clearing HCOB says if you disagree with something Hubbard wrote you have a prior misunderstood, but that it is just a rote (stupid) explanation. If a sup or word clearer ran that on you then they didn't understand what Hubbard said about power of choice in my quote above.

Paul

Paul, I supose you were referring to me, perhaps not. But to my knowledge, that 1956 reference is not part of the study tech nor the training for for course supervisors but M4 tech is, amonmg others things.. You should read the course sup mini and full hatspacks.

But as a former course supervisor, my job was to stop all disagreements because all disagreements were the result of one or more misunderstood words. Later, the False Data Stripping and then the FPRD were used for the more stubborn ones.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Paul, I supose you were referring to me, perhaps not. But to my knowledge, that 1956 reference is not part of the study tech nor the training for for course supervisors but M4 tech is, amonmg others things.. You should read the course sup mini and full hatspacks.

But as a former course supervisor, my job was to stop all disagreements because all disagreements were the result of one or more misunderstood words. Later, the False Data Stripping and then the FPRD were used for the more stubborn ones.

You were the latest, but there have been several others.

I sup'd at Saint Hill 1984-85, then at NWC and ITO 1986-1995. I did the full HPCSC line-up. The Student Hat packs have changed over the years. That Education tape was certainly part of my sup training. I believe it was on the Student Hat when it had 12 tapes on it (the blue-cover transcripts), but possibly not the later one (with the gaudy rocket on the cover of the transcripts) with nine tapes on it.

EDIT: Maybe the later Student Hat has ten tapes on it. Perhaps someone with one lying around could confirm.

Paul

 

[Mark A. Baker]

That Education tape was certainly part of my sup training. I believe it was on the Student Hat when it had 12 tapes on it (the blue-cover transcripts), but possibly not the later one (with the gaudy rocket on the cover of the transcripts) with nine tapes on it.

Paul

It does have a certain air of tech that is necessary to kill off if the SO is ever to succeed in its goals.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Terril park]

Late on the chain.

Have great expertise on word clearing in a class V org.

I'm good. I handled all that came my way with ribbons
medals etc.[ ok lol!]

Einstein, photography, TRs etc even in a foreign language.

Don't recall any big problems re word clearing . Biggest
problem was those with little english.

I handled everything. I know this stuff.

Paul is IMO the best guru who posts in this area.

He's my mate.

This squirrel [ Paul not me!]gives beast data I know in this area.

 

[x-x]

You were the latest, but there have been several others.

I sup'd at Saint Hill 1984-85, then at NWC and ITO 1986-1995. I did the full HPCSC line-up. The Student Hat packs have changed over the years. That Education tape was certainly part of my sup training. I believe it was on the Student Hat when it had 12 tapes on it (the blue-cover transcripts), but possibly not the later one (with the gaudy rocket on the cover of the transcripts) with nine tapes on it.

Paul

Nice Thread Paul, Impressed.

This raises the whole issue of who makes the "cult", it is the foibles of humans that make their own traps. Duplication comes before understanding, but it should result in a differentiation, not an identification.

And it is more TA in running "what I did to others" than "what others did to me" (curiously the basis of Dianetics). In fact all 4 flows, "others to others" and "self to self".

See I think it is fair enough to bitch what some one did to you, but to be stuck in it? Run flow 2.

I'm a little peeved with people blaming Scientology or Ron for things they were mocking up. There's another thread about learning to relax, hell, there are a million workaholics outside of Scientology. The AOSH Anzo Nots DofP in the 80's told me (in not so many words) "its not Scientology or life, but have it all".

 

[x-x]

What could you mean by saying this to someone who spent 15 years on OTVII?

You whinge I think because you put in a good job. Why not connect up with Marty for a review intensive?

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Why not connect up with Marty for a review intensive?

If he wants one, he'll find someone he can trust. Plenty of trustworthy former auditors in Oz.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Lermanet_com]

It's a nice sound bite Arnie, but not true at all.

Paul

How right can you be?

In an officlal CLAM "justice" cycle in the $cam of $cientology
Even THEY agreed that because of this material that you characterize as "Not true at all"
Randy Payne was not liable for 10% payments to Applied Scholastics for his use of
L Rum Hubtoad's supposed STUDY DRECK in his chain of english language for foreigners school in Hungary.

Of course they then declared Mr Payne an SP

He called me after there had been a break in at his home, which he suspected was OSA

He stopped calling me and I found out he died, I think it was a heart attack?

How right can you be?
Dead right in $cientology.


"The demo kit conditions the use to become adept at assigning meaning to bits of rubbish.
This certainly would help in the study of $cientology." Arnie Lerma