Dave Touretzky/Study Tech

I love Study Tech. It's my favourite part of Hubbard's writing, especially since it is the one thing that has so visibly helped me and everyone I've taught it to that I can't reasonably pretend it hasn't.

However, Dave Touretzky, a CMU prof, hates Scn so badly that he even hates the stuff that's actually helpful.

(quote)

Study Tech is founded on three principles: (1) use pictures and diagrams to illustrate the concepts being taught, (2) break down complex concepts so they can be mastered in a series of simple steps, and (3) always seek definitions for unfamiliar terms. These rules make sense and are harmless enough when phrased in plain English. But the Study Tech books present them in a different manner. The three principles are called “mass”, “gradients”, and “misunderstoods”: terms that were invented or redefined by Hubbard and loaded with significance in the Scientology religion. These concepts are presented in a doctrinaire manner that is also characteristic of Scientology religious instruction. Study Tech actually helps lay the groundwork for introducing Scientology doctrines into secular education.

<snip snip snip>

But Study Tech is no more a secular learning methodology than wine and communion wafers are a Sunday morning snack. Its ambitions may be entirely conventional, but its vocabulary and practices are part of a religious doctrine closely tied to Scientology beliefs. The end product of Study Tech is an individual who has been taught to “duplicate” uncritically any proposition, no matter how dubious. It deprecates critical analysis and genuine understanding in favour of a mindless acceptance of the author as an unassailable authority figure. It reflects L. Ron Hubbard’s profoundly authoritarian desire to be seen as the “Source” of all Scientology wisdom and it serves his aim of encouraging unquestioning acceptance of his authority.

(end quote)

Duplicate uncritically? No bloody way. In fact, Hubbard actually specifies a PROCEDURE to follow if you suspect a dictionary has a false definition. And that procedure works for other stuff too. He also says to stay away from critical treatments of a subject, which is good advice, because critical treatments are only interpretations of the actual work. Students should form their own interpretations. Hubbard also says that data is true because it works for you, not because someone says "This works." For instance, gravity is real. You throw a ball, and it falls to the ground at some point, and we call this direction "down". If I spent my entire life in outer space, where gravity does not exist, and was told that planets exhibit this behaviour, I'd be an idiot to believe this person unless I personally experienced gravity, or ran some numbers to find that it works. If anything, IMO Study Tech teaches the student to be MORE critical.

Who's right? Me or Touretzky?
 
I liked the key to life a lot, and I don't have a problem with most of the study tech - however! The big problem is that Hubbard preached in Keeping Scientology Working that his works are 100% correct, and so study tech as applied in the church is all about getting you to believe in all of his writings no matter how off the wall they may be. In doing so you end up in a bubble of belief that results in your being unable to evaluate Scientology itself, that you align all thought with it's stable data, and anything not conforming to Hubbard's mythology, you disbelieve.

Mimsey
 

Dave B.

Maximus Ultimus Mostimus
Study Tech is one of those things that Hubbard had nothing to do with the creation or origination of, so sure, it probably has value. I like it. From what I've read here at ESMB it was originated/developed by the Berners and Hubbard promptly assimilated and took credit for creating it.
 

onthepes

Patron with Honors
I love Study Tech. It's my favourite part of Hubbard's writing, especially since it is the one thing that has so visibly helped me and everyone I've taught it to that I can't reasonably pretend it hasn't.

However, Dave Touretzky, a CMU prof, hates Scn so badly that he even hates the stuff that's actually helpful.

(quote)

Study Tech is founded on three principles: (1) use pictures and diagrams to illustrate the concepts being taught, (2) break down complex concepts so they can be mastered in a series of simple steps, and (3) always seek definitions for unfamiliar terms. These rules make sense and are harmless enough when phrased in plain English. But the Study Tech books present them in a different manner. The three principles are called “mass”, “gradients”, and “misunderstoods”: terms that were invented or redefined by Hubbard and loaded with significance in the Scientology religion. These concepts are presented in a doctrinaire manner that is also characteristic of Scientology religious instruction. Study Tech actually helps lay the groundwork for introducing Scientology doctrines into secular education.

<snip snip snip>

But Study Tech is no more a secular learning methodology than wine and communion wafers are a Sunday morning snack. Its ambitions may be entirely conventional, but its vocabulary and practices are part of a religious doctrine closely tied to Scientology beliefs. The end product of Study Tech is an individual who has been taught to “duplicate” uncritically any proposition, no matter how dubious. It deprecates critical analysis and genuine understanding in favour of a mindless acceptance of the author as an unassailable authority figure. It reflects L. Ron Hubbard’s profoundly authoritarian desire to be seen as the “Source” of all Scientology wisdom and it serves his aim of encouraging unquestioning acceptance of his authority.

(end quote)

Duplicate uncritically? No bloody way. In fact, Hubbard actually specifies a PROCEDURE to follow if you suspect a dictionary has a false definition. And that procedure works for other stuff too. He also says to stay away from critical treatments of a subject, which is good advice, because critical treatments are only interpretations of the actual work. Students should form their own interpretations. Hubbard also says that data is true because it works for you, not because someone says "This works." For instance, gravity is real. You throw a ball, and it falls to the ground at some point, and we call this direction "down". If I spent my entire life in outer space, where gravity does not exist, and was told that planets exhibit this behaviour, I'd be an idiot to believe this person unless I personally experienced gravity, or ran some numbers to find that it works. If anything, IMO Study Tech teaches the student to be MORE critical.

Who's right? Me or Touretzky?

You are right. Touretzky is right. That is the thing with Scientology . It contradicts itself. You are correct that LRH says "if it is not true for you , it is not true". Siddartha (Buddha) said that originally, but I still like it. When you do the "New Student Hat" it goes a bit deeper. There is a bulletin that says "if the student is critical of the material he has mis-understoods". Seeing as all we were reading at the time was LRH we could not be critical of the material. Wait until you get to the Ethics Technology. That will be a real hoot for you. I do hope you get something though. Please just be wary of anything LRH wrote that condemns you for disagreeing with LRH. There was quite a lot of that.
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
I love Study Tech. It's my favourite part of Hubbard's writing, especially since it is the one thing that has so visibly helped me and everyone I've taught it to that I can't reasonably pretend it hasn't.

However, Dave Touretzky, a CMU prof, hates Scn so badly that he even hates the stuff that's actually helpful.

(quote)

Study Tech is founded on three principles: (1) use pictures and diagrams to illustrate the concepts being taught, (2) break down complex concepts so they can be mastered in a series of simple steps, and (3) always seek definitions for unfamiliar terms. These rules make sense and are harmless enough when phrased in plain English. But the Study Tech books present them in a different manner. The three principles are called “mass”, “gradients”, and “misunderstoods”: terms that were invented or redefined by Hubbard and loaded with significance in the Scientology religion. These concepts are presented in a doctrinaire manner that is also characteristic of Scientology religious instruction. Study Tech actually helps lay the groundwork for introducing Scientology doctrines into secular education.

<snip snip snip>

But Study Tech is no more a secular learning methodology than wine and communion wafers are a Sunday morning snack. Its ambitions may be entirely conventional, but its vocabulary and practices are part of a religious doctrine closely tied to Scientology beliefs. The end product of Study Tech is an individual who has been taught to “duplicate” uncritically any proposition, no matter how dubious. It deprecates critical analysis and genuine understanding in favour of a mindless acceptance of the author as an unassailable authority figure. It reflects L. Ron Hubbard’s profoundly authoritarian desire to be seen as the “Source” of all Scientology wisdom and it serves his aim of encouraging unquestioning acceptance of his authority.

(end quote)

Duplicate uncritically? No bloody way. In fact, Hubbard actually specifies a PROCEDURE to follow if you suspect a dictionary has a false definition. And that procedure works for other stuff too. He also says to stay away from critical treatments of a subject, which is good advice, because critical treatments are only interpretations of the actual work. Students should form their own interpretations. Hubbard also says that data is true because it works for you, not because someone says "This works." For instance, gravity is real. You throw a ball, and it falls to the ground at some point, and we call this direction "down". If I spent my entire life in outer space, where gravity does not exist, and was told that planets exhibit this behaviour, I'd be an idiot to believe this person unless I personally experienced gravity, or ran some numbers to find that it works. If anything, IMO Study Tech teaches the student to be MORE critical.

Who's right? Me or Touretzky?

Touretzky is right. And you are wrong. Sorry for being blunt.

"study tech" is, like all Hubbardian "revelations", total dreck.

And let me explain why.

"The only reason people give up study is by going past misunderstood words" (and I realize the quote is not exact)

This is total drivel - where is the research that backs up this little gem? Anywhere? other than being "revealed religion" where did Hubbard come up with this and where is the ecvidence? It is patently not true - for example people give up studying something because they realzie that it is rubbish, not for them, not a path they wished to go on. The idea that someone can SELF DETRMINATEDLY give up a course of study does not exist in "study tech".

The same is also true of his other "described phenomena" of study. What utter garbage it is - though it does sound good.

Touretzky actually has an advantage over Hubbard - he is a college professor and teaches people.

"Word clearing" - another wonderful piece of trash - forcing people to find "the mis-us" because they must have them if they think the subject is twaddle. The repeated "flunk!" of checkouts used to force people to think that they do not understand the text when they patently do because they cannot parrot a definition of a word at the drop of a hat. Wherre is the evidence that the ability to parrot back a definition of "the" actually helps understand the text?

The only reason KTL has something going for it (IMHO) is it actually forces people who probably have a fairly limited vocabulary (American school children - sorry to say) to actually acquire a vocabulary. it is FAR from the best way to acquire one of course - the best way is by reading - a lot. But in its hamfisted manner it at least tries.

I was blunt at the start of this and not to be nasty to you. Teaching "study tech" is a worthless endeavor - I have seen NOTHING come out of it and I have certainly never seen any evidence that Scientologists or study tech trained people, can study any better than normal people. Do you have any evidence in terms of real academic achievement?

And, honestly, if study tech actually did make you more skeptical - wouldn't they find out that it is worthless? And if it does not fulfill its part of brainwashing the faithful how come people don't exit in droves once they apply it to the "works" of the founder?
 

LA SCN

NOT drinking the kool-aid
Touretzky is right. And you are wrong. Sorry for being blunt.

"study tech" is, like all Hubbardian "revelations", total dreck.

And let me explain why.

"The only reason people give up study is by going past misunderstood words" (and I realize the quote is not exact)

This is total drivel - where is the research that backs up this little gem?

...

Good points and post. That 'the only reason...' statement by hubbard was one of his patent little zingers to hook people into his cult. I always felt it was bullshit.

Hubbard did not invent dictionaries or thesauruses (definitions), maps, diagrams, cutaway views (pictures or a promise of the mass), using little pieces of stuff to represent things (demo kits), or prototypes, scaled mockups, models (clay demos).

As usual he stole the work of others and cobbled it together with his own malicious spin to bring someone under his control, confusing people with a misdirector - example: scilon to self while studying - My truth detector is telling me this bulletin is bullshit and it is pissing me off; oh wait, I must have an m/u...

Yes, Touretzky is right and you are either playing devils advocate, a true believer or just haven't seen enough life experience to realize the truth about hubbard.
 
Touretzky is right. And you are wrong. Sorry for being blunt.

Honesty is not a reason to be sorry. I think there is right and wrong in everything, I don't think T. is totally right, but I don't think he's totally wrong either. (And you'd do well to take a typing class, Mr Wenlock. Sorry for being blunt.) I think H. was an intelligent man; a crackpot in many ways, but intelligent in other ways—his religious stuff is bunko, but you can separate that from the good stuff and you'll be left with 80% pure essence of genius. ARC triangle? Hells yeah!

Oh, yeah, also going to add, I'm not a Scnist. Here's the thing. I do agree with Touretzky in saying that it is doctrinaire in a way. Hubbard wrote in a very rigid way---"always" do this, not "try" this. Doing Hubbard verbatim, sure, that's bunko. But is it insidious indoctrination just because it uses words that are also used in Scientology? No. Not in my opinion.

But here's the thing. I was taught in a school where there was ONE dictionary per class, and students were not taught to use it often. There was no clay and students were not taught to make diagrams and models. Students were taught to memorise by rote. The things that were on the test were not applicable to real life, and students were made to move at the same pace, which was lightning fast to one person and plodding slow to another. There were "basic" and "advanced" levels of each class, but, to me, that was "slow" and "slower".

Good points and post. That 'the only reason...' statement by hubbard was one of his patent little zingers to hook people into his cult. I always felt it was bullshit. ... Yes, Touretzky is right and you are either playing devils advocate, a true believer or just haven't seen enough life experience to realize the truth about hubbard.

Again, I think nobody is 100% right, and I am not a Scnist, unless by Scnist you include those who more-or-less believe in the arc triangle theory and study tech and the 8 dynamics. I can't say the dynamics have really led to any 100% improvement in my life (it's way more subtle than that, but I have noticed mild improvement because I now seek to benefit more than just myself, or more than just my friends), and the ARC triangle either (also a bit more subtle, ARC is more of a how-it's-made rather than how-to-help-yourself thing).
 

Demented LRH

Patron Meritorious
I love Study Tech. It's my favourite part of Hubbard's writing, especially since it is the one thing that has so visibly helped me and everyone I've taught it to that I can't reasonably pretend it hasn't.

However, Dave Touretzky, a CMU prof, hates Scn so badly that he even hates the stuff that's actually helpful.

(quote)

Study Tech is founded on three principles: (1) use pictures and diagrams to illustrate the concepts being taught, (2) break down complex concepts so they can be mastered in a series of simple steps, and (3) always seek definitions for unfamiliar terms. These rules make sense and are harmless enough when phrased in plain English. But the Study Tech books present them in a different manner. The three principles are called “mass”, “gradients”, and “misunderstoods”: terms that were invented or redefined by Hubbard and loaded with significance in the Scientology religion. These concepts are presented in a doctrinaire manner that is also characteristic of Scientology religious instruction. Study Tech actually helps lay the groundwork for introducing Scientology doctrines into secular education.

<snip snip snip>

But Study Tech is no more a secular learning methodology than wine and communion wafers are a Sunday morning snack. Its ambitions may be entirely conventional, but its vocabulary and practices are part of a religious doctrine closely tied to Scientology beliefs. The end product of Study Tech is an individual who has been taught to “duplicate” uncritically any proposition, no matter how dubious. It deprecates critical analysis and genuine understanding in favour of a mindless acceptance of the author as an unassailable authority figure. It reflects L. Ron Hubbard’s profoundly authoritarian desire to be seen as the “Source” of all Scientology wisdom and it serves his aim of encouraging unquestioning acceptance of his authority.

(end quote)

Duplicate uncritically? No bloody way. In fact, Hubbard actually specifies a PROCEDURE to follow if you suspect a dictionary has a false definition. And that procedure works for other stuff too. He also says to stay away from critical treatments of a subject, which is good advice, because critical treatments are only interpretations of the actual work. Students should form their own interpretations. Hubbard also says that data is true because it works for you, not because someone says "This works." For instance, gravity is real. You throw a ball, and it falls to the ground at some point, and we call this direction "down". If I spent my entire life in outer space, where gravity does not exist, and was told that planets exhibit this behaviour, I'd be an idiot to believe this person unless I personally experienced gravity, or ran some numbers to find that it works. If anything, IMO Study Tech teaches the student to be MORE critical.

Who's right? Me or Touretzky?
I think that you should know that the clay demos technique, which is a vital part of the Tech, is used in real world to teach people with severe mental disabilities to communicate with the outside world. Trust me, I saw how mentally disabled individuals work with clay demos.

If you think of yourself as a mentally handicapped individual, the Tech is good for you. But for me and Touretzky it does not work.
 

Idle Morgue

Gold Meritorious Patron
I know ONE person that did the Key to Life and whatever the other one was. You know what I noticed?

That person was on it for 5,5,5,5,5 - FIVE YEARS! Absolutely NO CASE CHANGE! :coolwink:

But I had a win! My win - I will never waste my time on that course!:happydance: I heard it was suppose to "change your life"...:melodramatic: Oh - he probably needed Sooper Power!
 

SpecialFrog

Silver Meritorious Patron
Duplicate uncritically? No bloody way. In fact, Hubbard actually specifies a PROCEDURE to follow if you suspect a dictionary has a false definition.
So if the dictionary isn't helping you are allowed to find a better dictionary, but you aren't allowed to find better source material. This is what Touretsky means. A lot of Hubbard material is essentially nonsense. Study Tech encourages you to believe that it is your fault that the material is nonsense and therefore go off studying the trees until you have convinced yourself that you can see a forest.

Hubbard also says that data is true because it works for you, not because someone says "This works."
In the context of other Hubbard writings, such as KSW, this would be more accurately rendered as, "They data is true because it works for you. The data always works works for you. If it doesn't work for you you need to fix yourself so that it does."[/quote]

Who's right? Me or Touretzky?
Touretzky.

Some parts of Study Tech may be useful for some people. Different people learn differently, which is why its absolutist claim are ridiculous.

However, it is not an aid to critical thinking.

As for ARC, I kind of like Caliwog's essay on it:
http://caliwog.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/the-bs-of-arc/
 

olska

Silver Meritorious Patron
Touretzky is right.

Mick explained why quite nicely. All that supposed "phenomena" that goes along with "misunderstoods" and "skipped gradients" and "lack of mass" -- up to and including the "overts" and consequent "blow" that follow MUs is purely Hubbard's opinion.

... or the opinion of the people who first wrote all that nonsense up and from whom Hubbard confiscated it and then put his name to it.

I agree with this statement you attribute to Touretzky.

Study Tech is founded on three principles: (1) use pictures and diagrams to illustrate the concepts being taught, (2) break down complex concepts so they can be mastered in a series of simple steps, and (3) always seek definitions for unfamiliar terms. These rules make sense and are harmless enough when phrased in plain English.

Anyone truly interested in furthering others' ability to study could have written a one-page memo/essay about these three points and published it in a journal for teachers and educators and helped lots of people using the KISS principle (Keep it simple, stupid). For free, or for the pleasure of having their byline attached to it.

Would have been nice if you had included a link to Touretzky's article so we could read the whole thing, just sayin.
 

FoTi

Crusader
Honesty is not a reason to be sorry. I think there is right and wrong in everything, I don't think T. is totally right, but I don't think he's totally wrong either. (And you'd do well to take a typing class, Mr Wenlock. Sorry for being blunt.) QUOTE]

What?:ohmy: You think Mr Wenlock needs a typing class? :roflmao:

Care to explain why?
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
actually I am going to go farther on this.

Study Tech is not only useless it is harmful.

There is a fundamental feature of study tech which is both insidious and controlling.

The feature? That the student is wrong. If you do not understand it - its because you have misunderstood the words used, if you do not agree with it it's because you have mis-us or false data. If you persist in not understanding then it's your ethics.

The repeated use of questioning the student's understanding by trying to find fault with definitions and the repeated use of forcing them back over the material (because, after all they MUST have a misunderstood) is very similar to re-education techniques.

It is designed to force agreement.

It was put together by a psychotic cult leader - what on earth would you expect?
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
Honesty is not a reason to be sorry. I think there is right and wrong in everything, I don't think T. is totally right, but I don't think he's totally wrong either. (And you'd do well to take a typing class, Mr Wenlock. Sorry for being blunt.) I think H. was an intelligent man; a crackpot in many ways, but intelligent in other ways—his religious stuff is bunko, but you can separate that from the good stuff and you'll be left with 80% pure essence of genius. ARC triangle? Hells yeah!

Oh, yeah, also going to add, I'm not a Scnist. Here's the thing. I do agree with Touretzky in saying that it is doctrinaire in a way. Hubbard wrote in a very rigid way---"always" do this, not "try" this. Doing Hubbard verbatim, sure, that's bunko. But is it insidious indoctrination just because it uses words that are also used in Scientology? No. Not in my opinion.

But here's the thing. I was taught in a school where there was ONE dictionary per class, and students were not taught to use it often. There was no clay and students were not taught to make diagrams and models. Students were taught to memorise by rote. The things that were on the test were not applicable to real life, and students were made to move at the same pace, which was lightning fast to one person and plodding slow to another. There were "basic" and "advanced" levels of each class, but, to me, that was "slow" and "slower".



Again, I think nobody is 100% right, and I am not a Scnist, unless by Scnist you include those who more-or-less believe in the arc triangle theory and study tech and the 8 dynamics. I can't say the dynamics have really led to any 100% improvement in my life (it's way more subtle than that, but I have noticed mild improvement because I now seek to benefit more than just myself, or more than just my friends), and the ARC triangle either (also a bit more subtle, ARC is more of a how-it's-made rather than how-to-help-yourself thing).

Oh dear - I don't care about "typing classes", is OK - you managed to understand what I was saying - I do hope you did not have to resort to a clay demo.

ARC is total rubbish - it does sound good but it actually doesn't make sense. If you raise communication with an asshole you drop the affinity... hmm. Well that sort of turns it on its head. So as the communication drops your reality goes up? Wow. that makes sense. Hubbard had no idea what he was actually talking about. Going to be hard to accept but he was a liar and b/s artist.

Listen - if you are teaching people "study tech" please stop. If you want to teach, go to university and learn how to be a real teacher - then maybe you could be as good as Professor (there's a good word) Touretzky.

You strike me as someone wanting to do good works - the best thing you could possible do is to junk every piece of idiocy of Hubbard's and unleash yourself on some real stuff.
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
We've discussed 'Study Tech' a fair bit here. Opinions vary. When comparing people's different opinions about Study Tech, though, I think there are two things to consider. How much experience do the people holding the opinions have with studying things by methods other than Hubbard's? How much experience do they have in studying subjects other than Scientology?

I consider this important because I'm afraid my view is that Study Tech is really bad, but it comes with a lot of built-in hype about how good it is. I also think that Scientology as a subject is mostly gibberish, but it also comes with a lot of built-in hype about how good it is. And since it's mostly just about parroting Hubbard's nonsense, Hubbard's Study Tech is indeed quite good at helping people learn Scientology. So if somebody always had trouble learning genuine subjects in school, but then gets to make believe they are a genius while applying Study Tech to learn Scientology, they might well be convinced that Study Tech is great.

The only actually good parts of Study Tech are obvious things that everybody knows: don't try to go too fast, use concrete examples where possible, and if an unfamiliar word seems important, look it up. The only parts that are actually special to Hubbard are stupid exaggerations: the material is never wrong but only misunderstood, you can model anything with clay, and every misunderstanding is due only to not knowing words.

The part that's actively harmful is this. Everything that Hubbard suggests you do to learn — breaking things down into simpler steps, making concrete models and pictures, looking up lots of words — amounts to a way of massaging and re-interpreting the subject of study. You simplify it, you emphasize one aspect of it in your clay model, you juggle alternate definitions of its terms in order to make far-fetched sense out of nonsense. If a person applies Study Tech hard enough, they can take any idiotic material, and massage it into something that makes sense to them. Study Tech then trains them to ascribe all of the hard-won sense, which they themselves actually created, to the idiotic material that they were given.

For complex subjects with objective right and wrong answers that aren't up for personal interpretation, Study Tech is merely kidding yourself into replacing the actual subject with an easier one that you just made up. But for training people to convince themselves that Hubbard was right, Study Tech is just what the Doctor ordered.
 

omnom

Patron with Honors
Students were taught to memorise by rote.

Oh, Hubbard liked that too - Chinese School drills would, well, drill areas that he deemed needing memorization into your head. For example, giant wacky Org boards.

I think once you strip out the Hubbardisms, a lot of what's left isn't groundbreaking either: Don't gloss over areas you don't have full comprehension, visualize it if it works for you (clay, sketch, Lego, etc.), and so on.

Also, isn't it somewhat paradoxical to take bits and pieces out, as you disagree with them, when they're meant to be taken as a whole? Does this mean you disagree with them, or simply that you have misunderstood a word or concept within? How would you know, using Study Tech, which of the above are true?
 

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
I love Study Tech. It's my favourite part of Hubbard's writing, especially since it is the one thing that has so visibly helped me and everyone I've taught it to that I can't reasonably pretend it hasn't.

However, Dave Touretzky, a CMU prof, hates Scn so badly that he even hates the stuff that's actually helpful.

Who's right? Me or Touretzky?
Touretzky, for the most part. Mick's comment is spot-on.

The good parts of "Hubbard's Study Tech" are not original to Hubbard and the original parts are not good.

A good study tech would help the student think for themselves. Hubbard's does the exact opposite. A good study tech would encourage the student to do more study from many different sources. Hubbard's does the exact opposite. A good study tech would ask the student to question what they've read, do their own research and discover more about the subject on their own. Hubbard's does the exact opposite.

The basic premise of Hubbard's Study Tech is that the "source" of the data is always right. Every "remedy" for student problems is focused on what the student has done wrong. At no time can the possibility exist that the data is wrong or the "source" could be wrong.

While this makes Hubbard's Study Tech an excellent tool for indoctrination, it is not good for students and does not produce people who can research and think for themselves.

You are newly out, obviously. Take some time, do more research and think for yourself. It takes time and can be difficult but is quite rewarding.

Bill
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
The basic premise of Hubbard's Study Tech is that the "source" of the data is always right. Every "remedy" for student problems is focused on what the student has done wrong. At no time can the possibility exist that the data is wrong or the "source" could be wrong.

I thought it was mainly the basic premise of a couple of Method 4 W/C HCOBs.

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.

Aren't there "Power of Choice" drills on the Student Hat checksheet? Maybe that tape isn't on the Student Hat checksheet these days, but it was when I did the course. Or one of them — I did a few. :)

For the record, I find good bits in Study Tech, but a lot of waffle and some really bad bits too (like all the metered word clearing).

Paul
 

onthepes

Patron with Honors
actually I am going to go farther on this.

Study Tech is not only useless it is harmful.

There is a fundamental feature of study tech which is both insidious and controlling.

The feature? That the student is wrong. If you do not understand it - its because you have misunderstood the words used, if you do not agree with it it's because you have mis-us or false data. If you persist in not understanding then it's your ethics.

The repeated use of questioning the student's understanding by trying to find fault with definitions and the repeated use of forcing them back over the material (because, after all they MUST have a misunderstood) is very similar to re-education techniques.

It is designed to force agreement.

It was put together by a psychotic cult leader - what on earth would you expect?

Nice one, Mick. And....thanks. At the end of my miserable existence on Staff, I did some suping in the last 6 months. That was under protest and so you can well imagine the responsibility I felt on it. Well, some poor prick had to stand out the front and do role call. Anyways, the key thing to being a Sup is to know your Study Tech cold. I remember suping a number of students and they would look confused and look out the window. A tiny voice inside my head (which normally works a treat) said to me "They don't have an M/U, I think the material is shit".). Of course I could not say that or I would be put on a rack like William Wallace.
 

onthepes

Patron with Honors
The only actually good parts of Study Tech are obvious things that everybody knows: don't try to go too fast, use concrete examples where possible, and if an unfamiliar word seems important, look it up.

Brilliant post. All I do these days is look up a word if I feel it is important.I don't even clear it to the end of infinity. I just see what it means, maybe use it in a couple of sentences and move on. Also, now that we have the Internet, we can look up different opinions on a subject, which is wonderful, and it is GREAT that we are allowed to look at the Internet now (sorry I had to put that there).

On that note, I can Google almost ANY topic regarding bettering a person eg Buddhism, Yoga, Guided Meditation etc (no particular order) and will hardly find anything condescending about those topics. If I google Scientology - apart from the Scientology site - the amount of upset this "religion" causes is unparallelled. I think I could google "Hitler" and find more favourable reviews. The PR is so bad, it is astonishing
 
Top