Dave Touretzky/Study Tech

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
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
Hubbard was great on saying one thing that sounds great but actually implementing something completely different.

Could you please point me to the LRH reference where any official remedy in Hubbard's Study Tech focuses on the source material as a possible area of error and requires that the student to go outside of the presented material to look at other sources to either validate or invalidate the source material he is having difficulties with?

If you have any LRH material from his study tech that in any way suggests that the student's problem may lie with erroneous source materia, I would truly love to see it.

Bill
 

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
I just want to say that Dave Touretzky is an outstanding educator and spokesperson. His well researched and compiled sites are filled with information that has helped thousands. Particularly in regards to Narconon. Dave, despite his heavy work load at Carnegie Mellon, remains active with Narconon matters that come his way. He is a part of the team of critics helping to shut these facilities down. His site on Study Tech may not jive with scientologists but for former ones, it's an important place on the internet to refer people to in educating the public.
 
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.

As I said, I've never been "in" Cof$ or Scn. I understand the basic parts of a few of Hubbard's tenets. The spiritual stuff is bullshit. I do think for myself; I think I actually think more for myself than a lot of others do, and I feel I can look at stuff with a detached standpoint, without stupid things like emotions interfering.

I simply used a couple of the HCOB's (INDIRECTLY!) to teach a couple kids how to argue in court. That is all I did. I noticed they were doing this much more efficiently than when I was simply lecturing. Now, I use a lot of study aids (pictures, models made with matchsticks, and so on) with the same students, and they're a little bit quicker on the uptake. Now they understand what mass is, they make their own models instead of just taking point form notes (notes are still taken, but pictures have been added). They also get that A logically comes before B, which logically comes before C, instead of rushing for info and then tripping over themselves.

I pared down the crap on misunderstood words. As I said before, way too dogmatic. It is "always" misunderstood words. The idea of a source text being wrong simply is not covered, although false data in a dictionary is. In a suspected false definition, Hubbard says to take two more dictionaries and to look up the word in these two as well as the suspected wrong one. I assume this would also apply if a student thought a source text was wrong—get two more treatments on the same subject, look up the contentious text, and compare with the book one deems false.

Sure, there are disparities between what Hubbard preached and what he practiced, and there are even more disparities between what Hubbard preached and what Miscavige practices today. So I'd say this book IS borderline dangerous for a Scnist. But for someone who already thinks critically and simply wishes to RETAIN info, I'd say go for S.T. if it works.
 
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.



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.

sure, get it at www.studytech.org, form your own opinions people. As I said, I think EVERYTHING, even Hitler's Mein Kampf, is made of a varying proportion of gold and manure. Hubbard has lots more manure than gold, but the gold is in nice big chunks that can easily be picked out IMO.
 

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
Here's something else to consider.

I consider indoctrinating people into scientology a serious issue, having done so myself for many years when I was a Div VI FSM and on staff as a Course Supervisor in Div VI and the Tech Div Academy.

I put it right up there with posts in HCO and OSA.

A course supervisor is the indoctrination enforcer. The rules they work by are very simple and must be strictly followed. There is no room for interpretation. No room for discussion. KSW is what it is and the course supervisor's job is to KSW by getting the student indoctrinated Hubbard's way of learning and Hubbard's way of thinking, without personal inspection or critical evaluation.

The course sup is the indoctrination enforcer especially when having to supervise students studying Ethics & PTS related courses.

With any course, especially those that contain HCO PL Keeping Scientology Working at any level of the bridge where a student is not fast-flow, or despite that, where there are 'indications' that there is a misunderstanding on the part of a student at any level, the enforcer must step in and get the student doing it Hubbard's way.

If they don't get with the program, if they are resistive, they are sent to qual or ethics, depending upon the degree of independent thinking that is getting in the way of preventing the indoctrination.

The goal is a student who does not think for him or her self, or question anything, but who finds their MU and handles it to where he or she is compliant and moving along with the indoctrination process as a scientologist.

Being a course sup requires one who has studied their hat, who has and maintains that dedicated glare, with a willingness to help people. It's not for anyone. You have to really believe you are helping people when you do this work, especially more so when dealing with new people. You have to have like people, you have to have good TRs and an ability to complete many cycles of action in a multitasking mode all day or nite on post. But your goal is the dedicated glare of a student winning in his studies your way - which is Scientology's way. Which is Hubbard's way. Not any other way. When students stop asking questions or making comments like " Is this for real?" " I never heard of that before" "That idea makes no sense to me?" or "Why does he say that when I read here that..." " I don't agree with that" .... well, you know you have done your job and done it well.

I used to love being a course supervisor. Even after I left CoS, I retained my pleasurable memories of 'helping people' until one day I realized what I had really accomplished. Making people lose their critical thinking skills, indoctrinating people into Scientologists who believed everything they studied without any inspection of the content against other information. That was the intent. It worked. It Kept Scientology Working. I, as a course supervisor, helped make that happen.

So there are things to ponder, other points of view and not everyone is ready to see all that there is to see after they leave Scientology. But eventually I saw and I acknowledged my part and the effect my post and efforts had on people. [..]
 
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.

Ahh, except I'm not teaching study tech. What I did was told a few of my junior colleagues (in effect students, because they were learning from me) who were quite obviously having trouble and expressed as much to me, how to fix it. Like this:

Student: I can't see the difference between a corporation, a sole prop, and a partnership!
Me: Represent them as something on paper. Draw a picture of the management of each and their directors as themselves and as agents of the company, and then compare what they are.

Student: What's mortmain?
Me: Look it up in Black's. (instead of spending half an hour trying to explain mortmain, when all the kid wants is the dictionary definition)

Student: How does a criminal trial work?
Me: (makes paper or clay model of courtroom with people, instead of trying to find what exactly the student doesn't understand and then verbally explain it to him)
Student: Oh! It works like a civil trial, but the burden of proof is increased, and the jury verdict is preferred to be unanimous.

Student: I'm lost.
Me: List everything you need to do to get the job done, from easiest to most difficult, and do the easiest stuff first.

Basically Study Tech helped me learn and teach visually, instead of talking so damn much. A picture is worth a thousand words after all. I didn't give anyone a formalised course folder. I am not a professional teacher, but I do occasionally wear the hat of a teacher because I need to instruct someone in something. In this case, I was instructing junior lawyers in the fuzzier side of law.
 

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
... for someone who already thinks critically and simply wishes to RETAIN info, I'd say go for S.T. if it works.
Have it your way. You asked a legitimate question and you've had some excellent answers. That you choose to ignore all the data and insist on using Hubbard's Study Tech when there are so many better, proven options says there is more here than you've admitted to.

You didn't come here for advice at all. You don't care what anyone says, your mind was already firmly made up, so why did you come here? Why pretend?

Bill
 

shanic89

Patron Meritorious
Student: I can't see the difference between a corporation, a sole prop, and a partnership!
Me: Represent them as something on paper. Draw a picture of the management of each and their directors as themselves and as agents of the company, and then compare what they are.

Student: What's mortmain?
Me: Look it up in Black's. (instead of spending half an hour trying to explain mortmain, when all the kid wants is the dictionary definition)

Student: How does a criminal trial work?
Me: (makes paper or clay model of courtroom with people, instead of trying to find what exactly the student doesn't understand and then verbally explain it to him)
Student: Oh! It works like a civil trial, but the burden of proof is increased, and the jury verdict is preferred to be unanimous.

Student: I'm lost.
Me: List everything you need to do to get the job done, from easiest to most difficult, and do the easiest stuff first.

In this case, I was instructing junior lawyers in the fuzzier side of law.

Oh come on! So in what universe dose a junior lawyer not know any of the above questions? You are taking the piss. I find it impossible to believe someone who has studied a topic for many years, passed many exams, has not already experimented with and found their best practices, processes, for learning rather simple law terminology.
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
Student: How does a criminal trial work?
Me: (makes paper or clay model of courtroom with people, instead of trying to find what exactly the student doesn't understand and then verbally explain it to him)
Student: Oh! It works like a civil trial, but the burden of proof is increased, and the jury verdict is preferred to be unanimous.
That must have been one hell of a clay model. It gave this budding legal genius of a student all the insight you can get from Wikipedia. Funnily, though, my feeling is rather that what the really best teacher would say, to a 'junior lawyer' who didn't get something so basic, would be more along the lines of, "Kid, you're just not cut out for a career in law."
 

SchwimmelPuckel

Genuine Meatball
Anyway, picking [a raisin from the cowpie] of Hubbard's drivel. Like Study Tech..

It's a piece of Hubbard's Public Relations tech really.. Safepointing.. See, this little piece of Hubbard mindboggeling is good. Can we agree on that?

Nope!

And Hubbard stole it all from somewhere else.. Even if there is isolated parts of it that are sound, we don't need to give the malevolent scharlatan any credit for it.

I'm reminded of the 'data' about how long humans can stay alive in cold water.. Those 'data' came from Hitler's nazi doctors who actually threw people in cold water and carefully noted and tabulated when they died.. We don't give credit to those 'doctors' for that research.

:eyeroll:
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Hubbard was great on saying one thing that sounds great but actually implementing something completely different.
Oh yes, definitely. No disagreement there.

Could you please point me to the LRH reference where any official remedy in Hubbard's Study Tech focuses on the source material as a possible area of error and requires that the student to go outside of the presented material to look at other sources to either validate or invalidate the source material he is having difficulties with?

If you have any LRH material from his study tech that in any way suggests that the student's problem may lie with erroneous source materia, I would truly love to see it.

Bill

I thought I already did with that 1956 tape excerpt.

There's also the False Data Stripping HCOB of 7 Aug 1979, which includes:

Those who have studied study tech will recall that the validity of texts is an important factor in study. . . . It can happen, if you do False Data Stripping well and expertly without enforcing your own data on the person, that he can find a whole textbook false—much to his amazement.

My PaulsRobot3 False Data Stripping module at http://paulsrobot3.com/scn/fds/index.htm allows the user to FDS Scientology with no problem. When I was piloting it on myself (and tweaking it) I did that. I even have the worksheets online — my 1 July 2007 session FDSing the general subject of Scientology is at http://paulsrobot3.com/1st/sample-sessions.htm#F4 (right-hand column). There are 4 sessions FDSing Scn stuff: just change the "#F4" in the link to #F1, #F2 and #F3.

Of course the general thrust of Hubbard is that Hubbard is always right, and if you buy that you get into trouble. But when I was a Course Sup I managed to cherry-pick what I thought were the more sensible bits (like the power-of-choice data) and referred people to those as needed.

Paul
 

Kerry

Patron with Honors
Ahh, except I'm not teaching study tech. What I did was told a few of my junior colleagues (in effect students, because they were learning from me) who were quite obviously having trouble and expressed as much to me, how to fix it. Like this:

Student: I can't see the difference between a corporation, a sole prop, and a partnership!
Me: Represent them as something on paper. Draw a picture of the management of each and their directors as themselves and as agents of the company, and then compare what they are.

Student: What's mortmain?
Me: Look it up in Black's. (instead of spending half an hour trying to explain mortmain, when all the kid wants is the dictionary definition)

Student: How does a criminal trial work?
Me: (makes paper or clay model of courtroom with people, instead of trying to find what exactly the student doesn't understand and then verbally explain it to him)
Student: Oh! It works like a civil trial, but the burden of proof is increased, and the jury verdict is preferred to be unanimous.

Student: I'm lost.
Me: List everything you need to do to get the job done, from easiest to most difficult, and do the easiest stuff first.

Basically Study Tech helped me learn and teach visually, instead of talking so damn much. A picture is worth a thousand words after all. I didn't give anyone a formalised course folder. I am not a professional teacher, but I do occasionally wear the hat of a teacher because I need to instruct someone in something. In this case, I was instructing junior lawyers in the fuzzier side of law.

If a junior lawyer doesn't know the difference between a corporation, a sole proprietor, or a partnership by the time s/he's out of first semester law school, they went to the same university Hubbard did. Come on, indeed. Corporate law is usually a foundation unit in first year law school for heaven's sake. Certainly by the time they graduate they know quite well what those entities are and how they work. Quit pulling our legs. Sheesh!

And I don't believe for one minute that a junior lawyer, having passed a bar exam no less (!!!), or a high school graduate just being interested in doing law in the first place, would ask something as ridiculous as " How does a criminal trial work?" Muahahaha. I would have told them to go watch To Kill a Mockingboard, It would have answered the question and thrown in a few hours of great entertainment.

'Mortmain' - now this has a very interesting definition:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mortmain is a legal term that means ownership of real estate by a corporation or legal institution that can be transferred or sold in perpetuity; the term is usually used in the context of its prohibition. Historically, the land owner usually would be the religious office of a church; today, insofar as mortmain prohibitions against perpetual ownership still exist, it refers most often to modern companies and charitable trusts. The term "mortmain" is derived from mediæval French (mort main) and Latin manus mortua, literally meaning "dead hand."
 

secretiveoldfag

Silver Meritorious Patron
I haven't been following this thread - too much to read - but it strikes me that if this poster is trying to justify joining a cult in order to learn how to learn he himself has not learned very much.

It also strikes me that throughout the world billions of young people go to school and to college and to university every day and they LEARN fast and plenty, without having to join a cult.

And everyone who is actively learning uses dictionaries and now Wikipedia. I use Wikipedia a dozen times a day. Medical students look up definitions in medical dictionaries, legal students have access to legal dictionaries, other students have English dictionaries or bilingual dictionaries or technical dictionaries. And these students are not cluttering up their minds with a lot of meaningless ungrammatical cultspeak which leaves them unable to express a meaning in their own language.
 

SpecialFrog

Silver Meritorious Patron
You are twenty and yet have junior colleagues who are lawyers but don't know legal basics? That sounds a bit odd.

Also, why are emotions stupid and where is the gold in "Mein Kampf"?
 

Etrawl

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.

(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?
Your problem is that you talk in generalities without specifying how the Tech helped you. Your gains might be imaginary without you realizing it.

You said, "to teach a couple kids how to argue in court". But how good your argument was? Would it be good enough to win a court case? I doubt that.
 

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
Oh yes, definitely. No disagreement there.



I thought I already did with that 1956 tape excerpt.

There's also the False Data Stripping HCOB of 7 Aug 1979, which includes:

Those who have studied study tech will recall that the validity of texts is an important factor in study. . . . It can happen, if you do False Data Stripping well and expertly without enforcing your own data on the person, that he can find a whole textbook false—much to his amazement.

My PaulsRobot3 False Data Stripping module at http://paulsrobot3.com/scn/fds/index.htm allows the user to FDS Scientology with no problem. When I was piloting it on myself (and tweaking it) I did that. I even have the worksheets online — my 1 July 2007 session FDSing the general subject of Scientology is at http://paulsrobot3.com/1st/sample-sessions.htm#F4 (right-hand column). There are 4 sessions FDSing Scn stuff: just change the "#F4" in the link to #F1, #F2 and #F3.

Of course the general thrust of Hubbard is that Hubbard is always right, and if you buy that you get into trouble. But when I was a Course Sup I managed to cherry-pick what I thought were the more sensible bits (like the power-of-choice data) and referred people to those as needed.

Paul
Thanks. I don't want to argue but Hubbard talking in a lecture is exactly what I was referring to when I said that what Hubbard said and what Hubbard implemented are two different things. Also, while False Data Stripping is certainly part of Scientology, I don't think it is officially included in the "Hubbard Study Tech" as exported via Applied Scholastics et. al. As we were discussing Study Tech as a stand-alone "technology", I don't recall anything in that tech that allows for "source" data being wrong.

Just trying to ensure I have all the information.

Bill
 

SchwimmelPuckel

Genuine Meatball
Hmm.. It's intirely possible to wordclear and claydemo yourself into complete certainty about something and be intirely wrong just the same.. You can 'get mass' on a crashing misunderstood.. To make a goddamn crater when you hit reality.

It strikes me that Scientology is a living demonstration of that..

:yes:
 

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
Have it your way. You asked a legitimate question and you've had some excellent answers. That you choose to ignore all the data and insist on using Hubbard's Study Tech when there are so many better, proven options says there is more here than you've admitted to.

You didn't come here for advice at all. You don't care what anyone says, your mind was already firmly made up, so why did you come here? Why pretend?

Bill
"Honeywhite", In the absence of further information, I'm going to have to assume that your purpose was pretty much encompassed in your original posting: Slander professor Touretzky and promote the "goodness" of Hubbard's Study Tech. Those things are straight out of the Church of Scientology playbook. Well, you did that. Next?

Bill
 
Last edited:

Gadfly

Crusader
Hmm.. It's intirely possible to wordclear and claydemo yourself into complete certainty about something and be intirely wrong just the same.. You can 'get mass' on a crashing misunderstood.. To make a goddamn crater when you hit reality.

It strikes me that Scientology is a living demonstration of that..

:yes:

Very true! :thumbsup:

I have mentioned the same idea before.

When one creates "mass" through clay demos and demoing, for an IDEA that is BOGUS, one actually manages to build an understanding for a concept, and builds agreement with a concept that is false or invalid.

Take a 5 year old kid. Have him clay demo - "the world is flat". Have him do a demo of "how a ship will fall of the edge if it travels too far". Have him write an essay about, "how people would suffer and die if they go too far in a ship". You will LOCK into his mind an idea that has absolutely NO VALIDITY. Using demos for ideas that do not well correlate to REAL THINGS creates people who believe in nonsense.

This is a factor in MIND CONTROL. It has to do with implanting IDEAS into the heads of people.

By far the largest fault of Strudy Tech as presented by Hubturd is that "the subject is assumed to be 100% correct and accurate". There is NO avenue in Hubbard's subject of study whereby one can question the validity of the materials themselves. There is no procedure to put the SUBJECT itself to the test. THAT is a glaring "outpoint" to Hubbard's subject of study.

The Scientific Method allows for and encourages the questioning and testing of theories. Not so with Hubbard's Scientology. In fact, Hubbard never labels anything he says as "theoretical". Hubbard labels everything he states as "raw truth". Hubbard's approach of his own subject is to treat it with total reverence, unthinkingly, like a 14th century Catholic preist might treat his own religion, dogma and writings on the torture and killing of heretics. See? If you question anything then there is something wrong with YOU! Off with his head!

For example, a psychiatrist could take Study Tech and have students study "pre-frontal lobotomy" as taught in the 1950s. There would be NO WAY to "question" the validity of the claims and statements. If you disagreed at any point, the ONLY "tech" would be to "find your MU". See?

An exact application of Study Tech creates unthinking robots.

The manner in which Study Tech is used within the Church fo Scientology is ENTIRELY as a tool of severe indoctrination. The materials are assumed to always be correct and beyond dispute or questioning. THAT IS INSANE! :yes:

Now also, clearing the definition of words and balancing mass with significance could have a sensible methodology - but that sensible methodology is NOT found in Scientology.

Simply, one must balance IDEAS (significance, concepts) with specific observations of some behavior (mass). Trying to create mass for vague notions, general statements and abstract ideas leads to idiots and morons (as with what you see with over-indoctrinated Scientologists).
 
Last edited:

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Thanks. I don't want to argue but Hubbard talking in a lecture is exactly what I was referring to when I said that what Hubbard said and what Hubbard implemented are two different things. Also, while False Data Stripping is certainly part of Scientology, I don't think it is officially included in the "Hubbard Study Tech" as exported via Applied Scholastics et. al. As we were discussing Study Tech as a stand-alone "technology", I don't recall anything in that tech that allows for "source" data being wrong.

Just trying to ensure I have all the information.

Bill

As a (mostly respected) Course Sup at Saint Hill and ITO I operated relatively autonomously. That is, I applied what I thought were the good bits of Study Tech and as best I could ignored the crap, and was rarely questioned about my methods. Even when I effectively sabotaged my course room at New World Corps in 1987/8 for a month by actually trying to enforce the silly "no misunderstoods" rule (there was very little checksheet progress that occurred at that time) no-one could do anything effective to stop me as all I was doing was enforcing what it said on every single checksheet. My seniors were aware of what was happening. I think they hoped I would "grow out of it" or something (I did).

So, my concept of "Study Tech" was what I had filtered out from regular Hubbard sources, like lectures and bulletins. Most of it was in the Student Hat course pack, with some bits in the lecture transcripts (the older 12-tape blue book, not the newer 9- or 10-tape one with the cheaper paper and rocket on the cover).

The lecture references included that power-of-choice data and also when and how you could skip over words/things you didn't understand and it was perfectly acceptable.

Now, what is currently packaged up in various places as "Study Tech" I have no idea. I imagine those two bits in the previous paragraph are omitted as most Scn students I found weren't aware of them. But they are *extremely* important!

Paul
 
Top