Education and Study as Practiced in Scientology

lkwdblds

Crusader
Most of you have seen the promo pictures in Scientology magazines or seen film clips of the inside of of a Scientology Courseroom. What you see is a beautiful, extremely neat and well furnished room with a group of extremely well dressed, and well groomed people, usually of all major racial backgrounds so as to be politically correct, with every clean and well scrubbed face beaming with delight as if they were almost in exhillaration as they intently study their materials or hear their recorded lectures. A very well dressed supervisor or two who appear to be extremely knowledgeable and intelligent are in the picture often bent over a student's workplace helping a particular student with great interest and intensity. It almost looks like a courseroom scene out of the movie, "The Stepford Wives".

What set me to thinking about Scientology methods of education are recent experiences I have been having here participating in various discussion forums on ESMB. Here on ESMB, I have a chance to interact with people of all kinds, some with extremely brilliant minds, some who are angry, some who are serious, some of whom are kidding around, some who are business like, some who are vulgar, it really does not matter much but what does matter is that there is a wide variety of viewpoints about various topics of interest and there is also the abilty to interchange ideas, to talk about things, to agree, to disagree, to reach one's own conclusions. . I, for one, am often "blown out of my head" in a positive way and and often am walking around on "Cloud 9" after participating on an ESMB topic and know for certain that I am becoming wiser and attaining some personal and spiritual gain.

CONTRAST LEARNING THROUGH BOARD PARTICIPATION AND CLASSROON STUDIES.
Learning through board participation could also be incorporated into the classroom by the classroom offering seminars and/or study panels built in to its curriculum.

The Board Participation has the followind advantages:
1. THE INDIVIDUAL CHOOSES THE TOPIC HE OR SHE WANTS TO LEARN ABOUT. There was an old book circulating around in the early 60's called "Summerhill" concerning a Summerhill school in England where a student chose what he wanted to study. The theory was that if a student elected what to study, he would do better in the sublject than being forced to study something he had no interest in.

2. THE STUDENT IS ALLOWED TO INTERACT. The student is allowed to present his or her own concepts and dialogue with others. More than one viewpoint is allowed to be presented.

3, NEW IDEAS AND WAYS OF THINKING OR APPROACHING SOLUTIONS CAN ARISE FROM THIS TYPE OF STUDY.

The Classroom (both regular and Scientology classes) offers the following:
1. A standard curriculum, such as multiplication, can be taught in a manner logistically possible and it can be taught uniformly.
2. A variety of topics can be scheduled for teaching in a logical progression.
3. For regular education, different points of view can be presented.

The Scientology classroom is called a Courseroom and has the following additional attributes:
1, There is only one point of view tolerated, that of L.Ron Hubbard. This does not apply only to the subjects which he developed or put together himself but to all subjects in the world or in the entire Universe to be more accurate.
2. The viewpoints of L.Ron Hubbard are permanent and can never be allowed to evolve except if changed by LRH himself who is now deceased .
3. Creative thinking or a new or fresh approach on a topic is not allowed and is immediately stamped out if it arises.
4. Hubbard's study technology is used, consisting of :
4a. Misunderstood Word Technology and Word Clearing Technology
4b. Skipped Gradient Technology
4c. Lack of Mass Technology

Having experienced very thoroughly, all three methods of being educated, I find each one has its advantages and some have serious disadvantages.

The public school system of the classroom is quite effective in teaching things such as reading, writing, arithmetic, spelling, grammar, handwriting and also subjects such as history, literature, basic music and art courses, physics, chemistry, life sciences, phys. ed. and many other branches of education. For some reason, they do not seem to be able to teach subjects having to do with the mind and the psyche very well.

The Message Board interactive type discussion groups have the tremendous advantage of being interactive, allowing all viewpoints to participate and allowing free exchange between viewpoints. This type of educational tool will lead for certain to a freeing up of misconceptions and false data and will obtain the greatest amount of new and fresh thoughts arising. It is hard for false data to be accepted broadly in this forum because there will almost always be someone on the Board to challenge it. The Message Board approach can be adapted to public schools via seminars, panels and study groups being made part of school curriculum for more advanced thinking after the basics have been taught. The Scientology Courseroom will not allow this form of education as it is considered "squirreling"

The Scientology system has 4a., 4b., and 4c. above, which I think have merit and would improve the public school system if they were taught there. I expect that a portion of ESMB members would not agree with me on this. To follow Hubbard in the subjects which he originated is workable but even this has its limits as the subject can never grow or take advantage of new technical and cultural breakthroughs taking place in the world.

It is when going outside a field which he originated that allowing ONLY Hubbard data can lead to extremely dire consequences and not only can it lead there but it has repeatedly done so.

If Hubbard says to clean the windows of a car using water and old newspapers, someone can and has been busted for using Windex and a paper towel instead. Because asbestos was not outlawed in construction by international government building councils until the early 70's, Hubbard's write ups on maintaining ships in the late 60's does not reference asbestos, therefore Scientologists believe the "Wog" world is just paranoid on asbestos and all the scientific tests which revealed that asbestos when breathed causes lung cancer can be totally ignored with impunity.

A very large void in the technologies of Hubbard seems to be absolutely no concern whatsoever about anything changing after he dropped his body and no provision made whatsoever on what to do if some new situation arose after he was dead.

SUMMARY: Public education, message board interaction and Scientology Courserooms all have some good points. Scientology's good points, 4a., 4b., and 4c. can easily be introduced into the public school and message board forms of education. Message board type interaction could be incorporated into the other two systems but Scientology education policy does not allow this. Due to its rigidity, Scientology education must by necessity end up producing clones of L. Ron Hubbard, which in the subjects originated by Hubbard himself may have some workability. In other subjects which he did not develop, the use of his educational system produces unthinking Robots.

The well groomed, beaming with smiles, well scrubbed faces with the professional well dressed supervisors fresh and alert are not very real and are merely posed public relation photographs and film clips. The closest I have seen to this is when doing drilling where a student can make up situations such as spinning an imaginary story when pretending to be a preclear or creating amusing jokes during TR 0 bullbait or answering, "Do birds fly with some amazing play on words such as "Larry Bird flew to the net when he played basketball." THE FACT THAT STUDENTS ARE HAPPIEST AND MOST UPTONE WHEN THEY THEMSELVES ARE CREATING RATHER THAN WHEN THEY ARE DUPLICATING ALREADY CREATED DATA seems to go totally unnoticed and unobserved by Hubbard and Scientology officials. Apparently they do not follow their own "Obnosis Drill" (Observing the Obvious) which they teach as a basic tool of living! Maybe I am being too critical here, somethimes duplicating must occur. It can't all be fun and games.

When a person reads the materials, almost never is anyone in exhillaration although I have experienced it myself and have seen it happen in others on rare occasions when the item being read had a close parallel to something that happened in a person's life. For the most part, people are shifting around, scratching itches and somethimes even fighting off falling asleep. I had tricks to use if I started to doze off, such as getting up for a bathroom break and splashing myself with water on my face from the faucet or I would walk to get a dictionary or check a reference when I did not really nead to just to get some circulation going so as to keep me awake. Those public relations pictures of a Courseroom are not at all accurate.

I would like to hear your comments on education in general and Scientology education in particular as contrasted with other forms of education.
lkwdblds or call me Lakey
 
Last edited:

EP - Ethics Particle

Gold Meritorious Patron
A "tidbit" for starters...

...snip...

I would like to hear your comments on Scientology in general as contrasted with other forms of education.
lkwdblds or call me Lakey

Below is an excerpt from a post I made recently on another thread, briefly sketching similarities that I observed while involved in Scientology to stories told me by my grandmother and others about "country schools" and the like.

I might mention that she also handled the "skipped gradient" intuitively and could almost always spot what it was that someone had failed to "get" earlier.

"And, by-the-way, Grandmother used her form of "study tech" when she taught a one-room school around 1907, where she had the smart girls teach the plowboys to read by having them take turns reading aloud and correcting each other as they went along. They LOVED it!

They had no spelling books, so they used the dictionary and learned the definitions and derivations as they progressed.

She always said that "there's nothing new under the sun"... and I'm sure she came close to the truth there."

One thing that I always found to work almost magically was M7 and M9 word clearing (W/Cing) - but only if the rules were only generally followed and the participants followed intuition and instinct primarily. I was senior enough in age and experience to get away with this most of the time - and anyone who I ever word-cleared or twinned with invariably came up "bright and shining". :wink2: :yes:

One day I might write a more thorough treatment of this topic :confused2: but I hope this is sufficient to illustrate the quote from grandmother in boldface above.

Nice post, Lakey! :thumbsup: :clap:

Mike/EP
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Nice post yourself

Below is an excerpt from a post I made recently on another thread, briefly sketching similarities that I observed while involved in Scientology to stories told me by my grandmother and others about "country schools" and the like.

I might mention that she also handled the "skipped gradient" intuitively and could almost always spot what it was that someone had failed to "get" earlier.

"And, by-the-way, Grandmother used her form of "study tech" when she taught a one-room school around 1907, where she had the smart girls teach the plowboys to read by having them take turns reading aloud and correcting each other as they went along. They LOVED it!

They had no spelling books, so they used the dictionary and learned the definitions and derivations as they progressed.

She always said that "there's nothing new under the sun"... and I'm sure she came close to the truth there."

One thing that I always found to work almost magically was M7 and M9 word clearing (W/Cing) - but only if the rules were only generally followed and the participants followed intuition and instinct primarily. I was senior enough in age and experience to get away with this most of the time - and anyone who I ever word-cleared or twinned with invariably came up "bright and shining". :wink2: :yes:

One day I might write a more thorough treatment of this topic :confused2: but I hope this is sufficient to illustrate the quote from grandmother in boldface above.

Nice post, Lakey! :thumbsup: :clap:

Mike/EP

Very nice post Mike, the kids came out of those one room schoolhouses incredibly well educated in the basics such as reading, writing and arithmetic. Just looking at the penmenship of the children coming out of those schools is something, everyone wrote like a John Hancock with tremendous penmanship. Just examine letters coming home from Civil War soldiers in the 1860's or World War I soldiers in 1917-18 and you see incredible compositional abilities, great grammar, spelling and penmanship and excellent and colorful storytelling abilites.

Your Grandmother was one of those "naturals" just born to be an excellent educator. We've all had one or two of those in our own public educations, I believe. She definitely was using some elements of Hubbard's study tech just through instinct, common sense and natural talent for teaching.

I had a junior high school teacher in 8th grade in Los Angeles who insisted we look up a word we did not understand in a dictionary and use it a couple of times in sentences until we got it. She said this was a technique she learned, either in teacher's college or when she was a young student, I forget which of those two, but it was taught to her and she said it had served her well and she wanted all of her students to use it.

It would be great if you wrote an expanded treatment of this topic!
Lakey
 

altruistichedonist

Patron with Honors
Lakey. A Brilliant desertation.

It almost looks like a courseroom scene out of the movie, "The Stepford Wives".

Sanitized to a glaring fault.

Here on ESMB, I have a chance to interact with people of all kinds, some with extremely brilliant minds, some who are angry, some who are serious, some of whom are kidding around, some who are business like, some who are vulgar, it really does not matter much but what does matter is that there is a wide variety of viewpoints about various topics of interest and there is also the abilty to interchange ideas, to talk about things, to agree, to disagree, to reach one's own conclusions. . I, for one, am often "blown out of my head" in a positive way and and often am walking around on "Cloud 9" after participating on an ESMB topic and know for certain that I am becoming wiser and attaining some personal and spiritual gain.

I Absolutely agree here:thumbsup: . And I find I can change from brilliance to stupidity. and back. from anger to love. share in the jokes. cry to the sadness. give and receive. and not feel judged too much for simply being human.

The viewpoints of L.Ron Hubbard are permanent and can never be allowed to evolve.
Creative thinking or a new or fresh approach on a topic is not allowed and is immediately stamped out if it arises.

It happened many times when I was a Course Sup that a student would beam with a moment of brilliance and then tell me about it. It may have been contrary to LRH, but I wouldn't let my "trained" urge to invalidate it and tell them to find their MU. I'd let it run it's course and them have their successes. I got many correction TIP's (technical individual programs) as a result.

Misunderstood Word Technology and Word Clearing Technology
Skipped Gradient Technology
Lack of Mass Technology

Outside of Scientology I think it'd work like a charm, as long as the student is winning. In High School, as a teacher's aide to elementary students, I once got "kicked out of an elementary school" for honestly assessing in written form a "soon to retire" teacher as a bully and tyrant. That was in 1974 and I certainly hope that nowadays potential teachers are assessed to ensure this type of educator doesn't get near children. There's a lot of abuse potential here.

For some reason, they do not seem to be able to teach subjects having to do with the mind and the psyche very well.

I think this field is so subjective that only objective workshops seem the solution.

The Message Board interactive type discussion groups have the tremendous advantage of being interactive, allowing all viewpoints to participate and allowing free exchange between viewpoints. This type of educational tool will lead for certain to a freeing up of misconceptions and false data and will obtain the greatest amount of new and fresh thoughts arising. It is hard for false data to be accepted broadly in this forum because there will almost always be someone on the Board to challenge it. The Message Board approach can be adopted to public schools via seminars, panels and study groups being made part of school curriculum for more advanced thinking after the basics have been taught.

Beyond Brilliance. A MUST. I'm taking this suggestion to a friend who is a school trustee.

...Scientologists believe the "Wog" world is just paranoid on asbestos and all the scientific tests which revealed that asbestos when breathed cause lung cancer can be totally ignored with impunity.

And anything else that wasn't Hubbards viewpoint. I think his megalomania went so far as wanting to change the name of PLANET EARTH to PLANET HUBBARD.
In other subjects which he did not develop, the use of his educational system produces unthinking Robots.

Without a doubt! See the "twin" Tommies if you need any corroboration here.

THE FACT THAT STUDENTS ARE HAPPIEST AND MOST UPTONE WHEN THEY THEMSELVES ARE CREATING RATHER THAN WHEN THEY ARE DUPLICATING ALREADY CREATED DATA seems to go totally unnoticed and unobserved by Hubbard and Scientology officials. Apparently they do not follow their own "Obnosis Drill" (Observing the Obvious) which they teach as a basic tool of living!

I feel vindicated.:happydance:

I had tricks to use if I started to dose off, such as getting up for a bathroom break and splashing myself with water on my face from the faucet or I would walk to get a dictionary or check a reference when I did not really nead to just to get some circulation going so as to keep me awake.

Yup. When I'd hit that "WOW" moment and I needed to reflect I'd go take a break before the sup came to invalidate me with Hubbard. It wasn't confusion at all. It was BELLS GOING OFF IN ME 'EAD.

And there goes that big sigh of joy. Thanks Lakey. You just made my day.
 

Out-Ethics

Patron Meritorious
Good post and this is coming from one who has been a supervisor. Study tech has many many good points and if it is approached from the viewpoint that they are tools that one can use to help him in his studies then it works great. The biggest problem with study tech is the added teaching that LRH is the one and only source and can never be wrong. I can't tell you how many times a student would say to me this doesn't make sense or I don't see how this works or it's not real to me or just plain disagree.

Most Sups would robotically just say find your word and leave it at that and LRH-forbid that any sup should explain it. From my experience I would actually listen to the student so I would get what the difficulty he is having. From that I would communicate further to see if there was an MU or missing data or sometimes the student didn't have enough reality (lack of mass). The point is to help the student to get his own duplication first and then understanding which has to be from his own viewpoint and not an enforced one like "thats what LRH says" or "what does the material state?". If a student didn't agree at all and I know this is out-tech according to KSW I would allow the student to disagree and not make him wrong on the subject. When you enforce agreements all you get is robots or someone just saying yes to please you so he can move on. I would tell them it is up to you to test out the data to see if it works or not. Most of the time this handle the student.

Another thing that drove me up a wall is I get some exec or some tech or qual personnel telling me that a student has MUs because he is fiddling with his pen or has his hand on his head or just yawned or isn't sitting right etc etc etc. There were many times I had students who did exhibit these and they did just fine on their materials. I also had students who looked like the model student and couldn't find their way out of a paper bag.

Those picture in those mags are never the real course rooms. If the course rooms in the Churches are soooooo good then why not film an actual course room. I have been in course rooms from the Freewinds to Flag to the Advanced Orgs to Cl V orgs and I have never seen a course room that is yet to look like the magazine pictures.

As I already said Study Tech in its basic form are great tools to use anywhere. But when it is being used with KSW then it can and does create people who will accept LRH as the only correct source of data. You get some person who doesn't understand and can't apply some LRH data and he begans to think he either has MUs or false data because it can't possibly be anything else. How about the thought that LRH didn't get it right himself? Should I turn myself in to Ethics now? :stickpoke:
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
You made my day as well!

Lakey. A Brilliant desertation.



Sanitized to a glaring fault.



I Absolutely agree here:thumbsup: . And I find I can change from brilliance to stupidity. and back. from anger to love. share in the jokes. cry to the sadness. give and receive. and not feel judged too much for simply being human.



It happened many times when I was a Course Sup that a student would beam with a moment of brilliance and then tell me about it. It may have been contrary to LRH, but I wouldn't let my "trained" urge to invalidate it and tell them to find their MU. I'd let it run it's course and them have their successes. I got many correction TIP's (technical individual programs) as a result.



Outside of Scientology I think it'd work like a charm, as long as the student is winning. In High School, as a teacher's aide to elementary students, I once got "kicked out of an elementary school" for honestly assessing in written form a "soon to retire" teacher as a bully and tyrant. That was in 1974 and I certainly hope that nowadays potential teachers are assessed to ensure this type of educator doesn't get near children. There's a lot of abuse potential here.



I think this field is so subjective that only objective workshops seem the solution.



Beyond Brilliance. A MUST. I'm taking this suggestion to a friend who is a school trustee.



And anything else that wasn't Hubbards viewpoint. I think his megalomania went so far as wanting to change the name of PLANET EARTH to PLANET HUBBARD.


Without a doubt! See the "twin" Tommies if you need any corroboration here.



I feel vindicated.:happydance:



Yup. When I'd hit that "WOW" moment and I needed to reflect I'd go take a break before the sup came to invalidate me with Hubbard. It wasn't confusion at all. It was BELLS GOING OFF IN ME 'EAD.

And there goes that big sigh of joy. Thanks Lakey. You just made my day.

Altruist - I am glad I made your day, you just made my day as well! There is nothing I enjoy in life more than writing something and getting a response such as yours! What are the "twin Tommy's", I want to look them up but I don't know who they are and where to look? The fact that you were heavily involved in education both pre Scientology and in Scientology is good to know and the fact that you may pass some of my thoughts on to a school trustee sends me to Nirvana. ........Lakey
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Good post by you as well.

Good post and this is coming from one who has been a supervisor. Study tech has many many good points and if it is approached from the viewpoint that they are tools that one can use to help him in his studies then it works great. The biggest problem with study tech is the added teaching that LRH is the one and only source and can never be wrong. I can't tell you how many times a student would say to me this doesn't make sense or I don't see how this works or it's not real to me or just plain disagree.

Most Sups would robotically just say find your word and leave it at that and LRH-forbid that any sup should explain it. From my experience I would actually listen to the student so I would get what the difficulty he is having. From that I would communicate further to see if there was an MU or missing data or sometimes the student didn't have enough reality (lack of mass). The point is to help the student to get his own duplication first and then understanding which has to be from his own viewpoint and not an enforced one like "thats what LRH says" or "what does the material state?". If a student didn't agree at all and I know this is out-tech according to KSW I would allow the student to disagree and not make him wrong on the subject. When you enforce agreements all you get is robots or someone just saying yes to please you so he can move on. I would tell them it is up to you to test out the data to see if it works or not. Most of the time this handle the student.

Another thing that drove me up a wall is I get some exec or some tech or qual personnel telling me that a student has MUs because he is fiddling with his pen or has his hand on his head or just yawned or isn't sitting right etc etc etc. There were many times I had students who did exhibit these and they did just fine on their materials. I also had students who looked like the model student and couldn't find their way out of a paper bag.

Those picture in those mags are never the real course rooms. If the course rooms in the Churches are soooooo good then why not film an actual course room. I have been in course rooms from the Freewinds to Flag to the Advanced Orgs to Cl V orgs and I have never seen a course room that is yet to look like the magazine pictures.

As I already said Study Tech in its basic form are great tools to use anywhere. But when it is being used with KSW then it can and does create people who will accept LRH as the only correct source of data. You get some person who doesn't understand and can't apply some LRH data and he begans to think he either has MUs or false data because it can't possibly be anything else. How about the thought that LRH didn't get it right himself? Should I turn myself in to Ethics now? :stickpoke:

Hearing from another person involved in courseroom supervision in the Church shows me that I am connecting up with the right people who know what they are talking about on this subject. I am glad to hear that you feel similar to me about the good inherent in study tech, when used properly! You showed integrity and bravery by going "out ethics" in handling people who might have just agreed with LRH. Very well done, maybe you should change your screen name to something more descriptive of your deeds. Why not change to "Code of Honor".
Lakey
 
Last edited:

altruistichedonist

Patron with Honors
You are most definetly welcome.

Apologies.
When I referred to the "twin" tommies. I meant Tommy Davis and Tom Cruise and the obvious lies in their behaviors. Tommy Davis in his movements during thursdays's and friday's Nightline program and Tom Cruise in his movements from his 2004 Freedom Medal yak. In the post below I refer to both of them.
Their lies make me think they should be considered as twins as they're evidently overt products of DM.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p=319094#post319094

Added: Lakey. With all due respect to Geir Isene, I have a disagreement with "Your honor and your integrity is more important than your immediate life". I have a family that I love being responsible to and that takes precedence.
 
Last edited:

Out-Ethics

Patron Meritorious
Hearing from another person involved in courseroom supervision in the Church
shows me that I am connecting up with the right people who know what they are talking about on this subject. I am glad to hear that you feel similar to me about the good inherent in study tech, when used properly! You shower integrity and bravery by going "out ethics" in handling people who might have just agreed with LRH. Very well done, maybe you should change your screen name to something more descriptive of your deeds. Why not change to "Code of Honor".
Lakey

But I like Out-Ethics. Sometimes it's just good to be opposite. :)

Thanks for the kind words.

There are many good things about Scientology as long as it doesn't become an absolute. For those who are looking for the end all be all philosophy it doesn't exist because of the nature of who and what we are. I have mucho affinity for the subject of study tech and the sups that I have studied under that really know their craft are priceless.

Education for anyone should be enjoyable but like many thing in Scientology it is the absolutes that continues to kill it. Who wants to study in an atmosphere where you get meter check every course period and have to feel like you can't yawn or that you must do a demo or must sit up straight. But I guess this all goes back to KSW that we are going to make you an expert auditor or we rather have you dead than incapable. (sorry not an exact quote). I guess there are alot of dead students. :ghost::keelover:
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
The thing about Scn courserooms and academies is that the person is only there to study Scn. IRL, one gets more of a variety and a balance. This is healthy.
 

olska

Silver Meritorious Patron
Education is a subject in which I am very interested. One of the things I was looking for when I first came across and got interested in scientology, was effective methods for helping students -- particularly "resistive" students -- learn. I was excited to learn that "scientology" offered a whole "thing" on the subject of study and learning; but about 30 years ago I left scientology and am no longer enthusiastic about "scientology study tech."

Here is a post I made on another thread which summarizes why I no longer support it, and in fact resist having it implemented in schools.

Even though some similarities can be found, "Study Tech" as applied in scientology course rooms is VERY different from study methods outside scientology.

The objections to scn study tech are NOT
.. that a dictionary is used;
.. that learning the correct meanings of words is somehow bad or useless;
.. that demonstrations using a collection of little bits or a sketch or diagram is useless or foolish;
.. that having the "mass" of the "real thing" or something resembling it when studying things like computers, tractors, cabinet making, atoms and molecules, parts of the body, etc. etc. etc. is useless or foolish;
.. or even that using clay or other materials to model a concept is useless or foolish;
.. that approaching a complex subject on "gradients" has no value.

ALL of the preceding can be used to advantage, BUT THESE ARE NOT THE ESSENCE OF SCN STUDY TECH!

Aspects of scientology study tech which make it objectionable include:

1) the idea that at the bottom of all upsets or "overts" lies the "misunderstood word." This has never been proven to be true, and it's never been proven that "handling" these supposed MU's changes anything -- yet it is a KEY CONCEPT to scn study tech

2) the idea that "the ONLY reason a person gives up a study..." (or quits a job, "blows" an organization or other commitment, etc.) is because of misunderstood words which lead to overts which lead to leaving blah blah blah. Never proven, used as a "thought-stopping" technique, used to make people wrong, used to manipulate, etc.

3) the idea that a "disagreement" with something one is studying can, and should, be "handled" by finding and clearing up MUs -- when in fact, one might disagree for all kinds of reasons. Again, not proven, used for thought-stopping, used to make people wrong, used to manipulate, etc.

4) NO TEACHER knowledgeable about the subject being taught/learned on site to help students; the idea that a "supervisor" and "checksheet" is an appropriate substitute for a real teacher, and that the only proper answer to a student's question is, "what do your materials state."

People can of course learn on their own through study with books, audio-visual aids, etc. without benefit of a classroom and teacher, and this is done by many people on many levels.

HOWEVER, scn "study tech" DEMANDS use of this method, even when it is not effective for many students. Student who can't cut it with this method is word-cleared to death or otherwise made wrong, labeled "DB" or "ethics bait" etc. etc.

The above 4 points are KEY CONCEPTS of scientology "Study Tech" and are rigidly enforced where "Study Tech" is used, and are some of the KEY REASONS why scientology "Study Tech" is a form of mind control that imo should be discarded.

As well, scientology study tech gives the "three barriers to study" (MUs, lack of mass, out gradient) as though these are the ONLY barriers to effective study -- which is not at all true, and which again leads to thought-stopping oversimplification and making people wrong when they don't conform to the pattern.

The biggest "barrier to study" in real life is not even included.

I think the researchers who came up with "study tech" for Hubbard's "scientology" used some tried-and-true study/learning methods, but in their attempt to isolate the ONE AND ONLY WHY anyone has trouble studying, they made some really wrong assumptions that are now forever imbedded in "scientology study tech" and make it an excellent tool for mind control but NOT a good method for, for example, getting a college education or developing expertise with a technical skill.

Summary:

Because of the false assumptions at its core, "scientology study tech" IS NOT the same as, or even very similar to, effective study methods used outside ScientologyWorld.

And because of those false assumptions, I am adamantly AGAINST the use of "scientology study tech" in schools outside ScientologyWorld.
 
Is "duplication" the only thing aimed at in scientology "study tech"? I think it might all boil down to that.
A very Hubbardarian approach; things are "duplicated".
To "duplicate" (make an exact copy of?) is to understand, or would be if "understand" was used in scientoloigy in it's full sense. But I don't think it is. "Duplication" = understanding.

There are "gradients" but is newly learned information expected to be integrated with prior learning in Sci? Is information supposed to be analysed for inconsistencies? Is information supposed to be argued and checked against several sources to discover the best conclusion, or the conclusion which is probably the most valid? I don't think so. From what I can remember it's just about >>how to get the information to go in. Is that learning? In a very basic limited way it is, but "learning" can be a process which does much more than that, and usually is, in education today, AFAIK.
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Okay,,,

The thing about Scn courserooms and academies is that the person is only there to study Scn. IRL, one gets more of a variety and a balance. This is healthy.

You make a fair point and are right as far as you go but I don't believe you are going far enough.

My post concerns techniques and philosophies of study much much more than the subject matter which is studied. That is why I distinguish between using the Scientology study techniques on subjects which Hubbard created himself and other more general subjects like how to clean windows or wash a car. As you say, the person is in the Academies and courserooms to study Scientology, and the Scientology parameters of study should be confined to Scientology materials such as auditor training, assists and Scientology admin training and then it should stop being applied right there!!

When it gets into how to wash a car, how to wash windows or life theatening subjects about which Hubbard knew nothing about such as asbestos abatement, the full Scientology system which states that anything Hubbard wrote is correct or if he did not write anything then there can be no situation to deal with is JUST PLAIN UNADULTERATED 100 % NON-CONFRONT ROBOTISM AND IS BULLSHIT!!

BESIDES ACADEMIES,THE FULL HUBBARD SYSTEM IS ALSO APPLIED TO YOUNG KIDS
Yet, the drawbacks of using the full Hubbard study system does not end there. You have to look at children whose parents join staff when the kids are in the early grades in elementary school or kids who are sent to Scientology run schools by their parents when the kids are teenagers. These kids then learn their general education subjects, things which have nothing to do with the study of Scientology at all, using the full Hubbard study method which includes Hubbard being the only valid authority on what is correct.

Often this results in learning only enough general education to read, sign their name and only enough math to count money and make change and keep up a stat graph. Some Ronbot in charge can arbitrarily decide, based on what he has learned in Scientology, that all Earth studies are worthless and invalid false technologies and that only Hubbard should be studied. Instead of receiving a general education, they are given education in only Scientology subjects and pulled out of the general school subjects so that they can do MEST labor for a few pennies of pay.

Of course, since they are taught that lying is good to do if it forwards the expansion of Scientology, on the days when a public school official is coming to inpect their schooling facilities, the schooling areas are cleaned up and normal general school books are put out and the classroom supervisor pretends he or she is a teacher and is giving a mock English or history lesson when the inspector arrives. This is quickly unmocked as soon as the inpector leaves. Lovely, very lovely, the Hubbard education system in action, keeping your kids ignorant because you are a robot who has bought into the false data that all standard Earth technology is not worth learning. To counter your opening sentence, this is not healthy!
Lakey
 
Last edited:

Out-Ethics

Patron Meritorious
You make very good points here.

Education is a subject in which I am very interested. One of the things I was looking for when I first came across and got interested in scientology, was effective methods for helping students -- particularly "resistive" students -- learn. I was excited to learn that "scientology" offered a whole "thing" on the subject of study and learning; but about 30 years ago I left scientology and am no longer enthusiastic about "scientology study tech."

Here is a post I made on another thread which summarizes why I no longer support it, and in fact resist having it implemented in schools.

Even though some similarities can be found, "Study Tech" as applied in scientology course rooms is VERY different from study methods outside scientology.

The objections to scn study tech are NOT
.. that a dictionary is used;
.. that learning the correct meanings of words is somehow bad or useless;
.. that demonstrations using a collection of little bits or a sketch or diagram is useless or foolish;
.. that having the "mass" of the "real thing" or something resembling it when studying things like computers, tractors, cabinet making, atoms and molecules, parts of the body, etc. etc. etc. is useless or foolish;
.. or even that using clay or other materials to model a concept is useless or foolish;
.. that approaching a complex subject on "gradients" has no value.

These points and a few others are plusses.

ALL of the preceding can be used to advantage, BUT THESE ARE NOT THE ESSENCE OF SCN STUDY TECH!

Aspects of scientology study tech which make it objectionable include:

1) the idea that at the bottom of all upsets or "overts" lies the "misunderstood word." This has never been proven to be true, and it's never been proven that "handling" these supposed MU's changes anything -- yet it is a KEY CONCEPT to scn study tech

I can see this occuring. One is learning to use a machine. Studies the manual, goes by an MU, attempts to operate the machine and ends up not doing the proper maintenance and the machine breaks down. The key thing that I get from this datum is that it is important to have a good understanding of the words you are studying. Does it lead to all overts or upsets? That's a pretty blanket statement to make but I have observed this so there is some truth to this.

2) the idea that "the ONLY reason a person gives up a study..." (or quits a job, "blows" an organization or other commitment, etc.) is because of misunderstood words which lead to overts which lead to leaving blah blah blah. Never proven, used as a "thought-stopping" technique, used to make people wrong, used to manipulate, etc.

If a student leaves Scienology there has to be a reason why. While I can see this applicable in areas where someone wants to study a subject (and it doesn't have to be Scientology) and he has gone by words he doesn't understand he could "blow" course. I had an employee one time who wanted to leave her job. I got in comm with her and found a key misunderstood word and she dsecided to stay on. I never tried to handle her staying or quiting but just checked to see if there were MUs. In this case this did work. So I can say there is truth to a student leaving course because of MUs. I can also see how it could be if a student misses words and end up committing an overt. But to me there still could be other reasons why. LRH apparently set this up as a catch all and it is not always the case.

3) the idea that a "disagreement" with something one is studying can, and should, be "handled" by finding and clearing up MUs -- when in fact, one might disagree for all kinds of reasons. Again, not proven, used for thought-stopping, used to make people wrong, used to manipulate, etc.

Again it is possible that the MU is causing this but there can be other reasons such as is the text book data correct. I think the main reason this was put there was to get Scientologists to handle any disagreement with LRH by getting their MUs cleared. I have observed where students are made wrong by this.

4) NO TEACHER knowledgeable about the subject being taught/learned on site to help students; the idea that a "supervisor" and "checksheet" is an appropriate substitute for a real teacher, and that the only proper answer to a student's question is, "what do your materials state."

I give you a big Amen here. I never agreed with this. It is not always the MUs or other barriers to study but that a student does at times need another person who is knowledgable on the subject if not the supervisor to help him out on this. I'm talking about knowing the subject. Students come up with real questions and the Supervisor has to be able to handle it. Many Supervisors end up learning the subject so that they can handle a student's question. Somebody somewhere has to be knowledgable or how would you ever know if the student is really learning the subject. Can you imagine teaching grammar and not knowing grammar or math and not know how to multiply?

People can of course learn on their own through study with books, audio-visual aids, etc. without benefit of a classroom and teacher, and this is done by many people on many levels.

HOWEVER, scn "study tech" DEMANDS use of this method, even when it is not effective for many students. Student who can't cut it with this method is word-cleared to death or otherwise made wrong, labeled "DB" or "ethics bait" etc. etc.

[B]My observation on this is that students today are far less educated then they were when I went to school. They do not know grammar, they have many words that are sloppily defined, they cannot duplicate very well and when they finish studying a text they have no clue about it. I have to disagree with you on the above point you make here. I can say that I have direct observation as I have worked with hundreds of people in all walks of life. Some of them are totally fine as far as their ability to study and use data. Others and I would say the vast majority have holes in their own education. I wouldn't label these guys as BDs or ethics bait nor did they end up on ethics lines. They did need to be word cleared which did in fact helped them tremendously. Perhaps I'm using study tech to actually help these guys but then again I never really believed in forcing anyone to believe or just follow so maybe I was getting better results.

The above 4 points are KEY CONCEPTS of scientology "Study Tech" and are rigidly enforced where "Study Tech" is used, and are some of the KEY REASONS why scientology "Study Tech" is a form of mind control that imo should be discarded.

As well, scientology study tech gives the "three barriers to study" (MUs, lack of mass, out gradient) as though these are the ONLY barriers to effective study -- which is not at all true, and which again leads to thought-stopping oversimplification and making people wrong when they don't conform to the pattern.

Sure there can be other factors. Study tech is IMO one of the better things that have come from Hubbard. However as I stated earlier there is a part of the study tech where LRH is source and is never wrong. That is the part that is taught on the Student Hat and this creates a person thinking that if he cannot apply it or has disagreements that it is him and not LRH. To me that is the danger I believe you are talking about here.

The biggest "barrier to study" in real life is not even included.

I think the researchers who came up with "study tech" for Hubbard's "scientology" used some tried-and-true study/learning methods, but in their attempt to isolate the ONE AND ONLY WHY anyone has trouble studying, they made some really wrong assumptions that are now forever imbedded in "scientology study tech" and make it an excellent tool for mind control but NOT a good method for, for example, getting a college education or developing expertise with a technical skill.

Any technology is only as good as it works. I'm sure there are other methods not LRHs that have very valid workability.

Summary:

Because of the false assumptions at its core, "scientology study tech" IS NOT the same as, or even very similar to, effective study methods used outside ScientologyWorld.

And because of those false assumptions, I am adamantly AGAINST the use of "scientology study tech" in schools outside ScientologyWorld.


Perhaps the best parts can be taken and used. Afterall to me they are only tools which can be used to help.
 

olska

Silver Meritorious Patron
You make very good points here.

Perhaps the best parts can be taken and used. Afterall to me they are only tools which can be used to help.

These three "best parts" -- the use of dictionaries and a focus on correct terminology ("MU tech"), approaching a subject by building one's understanding and/or skill little by little ("gradients"), and using drawings, charts, mock-ups, models, and various forms of demonstration as well as "the real thing" whenever possible ("mass") are indeed useful to know, and it behooves any student and any educator to be aware of these as part of their tool set.

These are part of the common wisdom that students and educators at many levels have been using long before "scientology" came on the scene.

It irks me that this common wisdom is gathered under the umbrella of "scientology," copyrighted and credited to Hubbard. Just because you might have first encountered those "best parts" through your study of scientology, doesn't mean that they are "new" with scientology.

What can actually be attributed to Hubbard (or his researchers) and to the "religion" of SCIENTOLOGY are the assumptions and theories that I delineated in points 1-4 in my previous post.

Those are KEY CONCEPTS that lie AT THE CORE of "scientology study tech," and those are RELIGIOUS BELIEFS (part of the "religion" of "scientology") that have never been proven to be true or valid outside that "religion."

Sorry, but your anectdotal experience is in the same category as "prayer" or "faith healing" and does not constitute "proof" of anything.

Applying these assumptions as though they are proven and valid leads to a (imo dangerous) form of mental manipulation and indoctrination, rather than education.

This in turn leads to, among other absurdities, the rabid and fanatical push by scientologists to disseminate "Study Tech," with entire organizations sprouting up with fund raising, staff contracts, extensive training programs, etc. etc. to accomplish this.

Want to bring "three barriers to study" to the attention of educators? Here's a thought:

In journals that educators usually read for the latest info related to their field, publish a short article delineating "three barriers to study" -- not as THE ONLY difficulty students might ever have, but pointing out that these are COMMONLY FOUND difficulties -- good idea to check for these in your classrooms! Send a friendly, FREE one-page memo out to every teacher and school administrator in the USA and every other country that concisely presents those "three barriers to study" as something to check when students are having problems.

No fuss, no muss, no bother. No fundraising required. No billion year contracts necessary. No mixing of "church" and "state" -- no fanatical religious beliefs involved.
 

Blue Spirit

Silver Meritorious Patron
Ava and Charles Berner

Has it been mentioned above that the Study Tech was stolen from

Ava and Charles Berner ?

I think I read the story in one of ALAN's posts. Maybe elsewhere.

Ava and Charles later had an attempt by the Sea Org Mafia to reverse audit

them on orders from LRH using OT-3 data, which at the time was rather

dangerous. They had formed there own group, I believe called "Abilitism".


When you actually think of it the three barriers to study are all

SIMPLE COMMON SENSE.
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Outstanding Post!!

Education is a subject in which I am very interested. One of the things I was looking for when I first came across and got interested in scientology, was effective methods for helping students -- particularly "resistive" students -- learn. I was excited to learn that "scientology" offered a whole "thing" on the subject of study and learning; but about 30 years ago I left scientology and am no longer enthusiastic about "scientology study tech."

Here is a post I made on another thread which summarizes why I no longer support it, and in fact resist having it implemented in schools.

Even though some similarities can be found, "Study Tech" as applied in scientology course rooms is VERY different from study methods outside scientology.

The objections to scn study tech are NOT
.. that a dictionary is used;
.. that learning the correct meanings of words is somehow bad or useless;
.. that demonstrations using a collection of little bits or a sketch or diagram is useless or foolish;
.. that having the "mass" of the "real thing" or something resembling it when studying things like computers, tractors, cabinet making, atoms and molecules, parts of the body, etc. etc. etc. is useless or foolish;
.. or even that using clay or other materials to model a concept is useless or foolish;
.. that approaching a complex subject on "gradients" has no value.

ALL of the preceding can be used to advantage, BUT THESE ARE NOT THE ESSENCE OF SCN STUDY TECH!

Aspects of scientology study tech which make it objectionable include:

1) the idea that at the bottom of all upsets or "overts" lies the "misunderstood word." This has never been proven to be true, and it's never been proven that "handling" these supposed MU's changes anything -- yet it is a KEY CONCEPT to scn study tech

I agree it has never been proven. Empirically, I have had some success with it and seen or coached others to success with it so I would still use it if tutoring someone but there's absolutely no doubt that it has not been proven.

2) the idea that "the ONLY reason a person gives up a study..." (or quits a job, "blows" an organization or other commitment, etc.) is because of misunderstood words which lead to overts which lead to leaving blah blah blah. Never proven, used as a "thought-stopping" technique, used to make people wrong, used to manipulate, etc.

I totally agree with you 100%. Some people quit an organization because it is unethical or its purposes do not align with those of the person. What about Hubbard leaving the Navy, he claims he did it because they were going to attempt to order him to use Dianetics in ways that would benefit the Navy? Did he have misunderstood words when he left the Navy or said sayonara to his first two wives and the children he fathered with them?

3) the idea that a "disagreement" with something one is studying can, and should, be "handled" by finding and clearing up MUs -- when in fact, one might disagree for all kinds of reasons. Again, not proven, used for thought-stopping, used to make people wrong, used to manipulate, etc.

4) NO TEACHER knowledgeable about the subject being taught/learned on site to help students; the idea that a "supervisor" and "checksheet" is an appropriate substitute for a real teacher, and that the only proper answer to a student's question is, "what do your materials state."

People can of course learn on their own through study with books, audio-visual aids, etc. without benefit of a classroom and teacher, and this is done by many people on many levels.

HOWEVER, scn "study tech" DEMANDS use of this method, even when it is not effective for many students. Student who can't cut it with this method is word-cleared to death or otherwise made wrong, labeled "DB" or "ethics bait" etc. etc.

The above 4 points are KEY CONCEPTS of scientology "Study Tech" and are rigidly enforced where "Study Tech" is used, and are some of the KEY REASONS why scientology "Study Tech" is a form of mind control that imo should be discarded.

As well, scientology study tech gives the "three barriers to study" (MUs, lack of mass, out gradient) as though these are the ONLY barriers to effective study -- which is not at all true, and which again leads to thought-stopping oversimplification and making people wrong when they don't conform to the pattern.

The biggest "barrier to study" in real life is not even included.

What is it? Please let us know what you believe it is.

I think the researchers who came up with "study tech" for Hubbard's "scientology" used some tried-and-true study/learning methods, but in their attempt to isolate the ONE AND ONLY WHY anyone has trouble studying, they made some really wrong assumptions that are now forever imbedded in "scientology study tech" and make it an excellent tool for mind control but NOT a good method for, for example, getting a college education or developing expertise with a technical skill.

Summary:

Because of the false assumptions at its core, "scientology study tech" IS NOT the same as, or even very similar to, effective study methods used outside ScientologyWorld.

And because of those false assumptions, I am adamantly AGAINST the use of "scientology study tech" in schools outside ScientologyWorld.

I remember you an I had a violent disagreement on an earlier thread many months ago. I recognized that you knew what you were talking about and fought hard for your convictions. I am really pleased that we two are in lockstep agreement on this important topic of education.

What about the claim that if Joe is better than Bill in art, if Bill cleans up his M/U's he may surpass Joe. I know LRH words this differently such that Bill will not automatically be better than Joe but Bill will move closer to his full narutal abitlity. Still there is an implication given that Bill might pass Joe through clearing his m/U's. I always thought this claim did not make sense. If someone cleared up his m/u's in something, like being able to compose music, I just could never conceive that he would be any better of a composer. In a technical field like photography, I could see where clearing up a word such as "aperture" or something technical might lead to improved results with a camera but there are a lot of fields where I think clearing words would not ever cause an increase in ability.

Your post is absolutely incredible!
Lakey
 

dchoiceisalwaysrs

Gold Meritorious Patron
Thank you Blue Spirit

Yes, Alan in his second post on the " Opening Pandora's Box " thread stated

"Ava and Charles Berner, professors of English discovered and developed much of the study technology we use, they had spent almost 40 years each in their research – research that had spanned many of the foremost educators down through time - we teach what they discovered in 3 weeks."

and then tells us how it became "Scientology" in this in post #11 same thread

"For example: I and several other Scio's had dinner with Chuck and Ava Berner at the Forrest Row Hotel, it was June 1964, the night before Chuck and Ava were to meet with LRH to go over this new discovery they made to do with study.

We were all enthralled with what they had discovered.

Imagine the shock we had when LRH told us in a the lecture that night that he had made a momentous discovery in the field of study.

The data he gave was almost word for word with what the Berner's had discussed with us the previous night.

There was no mention of the Berner's who were in the audience.

They were devastated."

I wonder if Eva and Charles ever wrote any books or academic papers regarding their research? I understand that they went on to establish the
"Abilitism" organization.

Has it been mentioned above that the Study Tech was stolen from

Ava and Charles Berner ?

I think I read the story in one of ALAN's posts. Maybe elsewhere.

Ava and Charles later had an attempt by the Sea Org Mafia to reverse audit

them on orders from LRH using OT-3 data, which at the time was rather

dangerous. They had formed there own group, I believe called "Abilitism".


When you actually think of it the three barriers to study are all

SIMPLE COMMON SENSE.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
I don't have a problem with hubbardite study tech being applied to other arenas of life. If something constitutes a study aid, then it does. But I do think that other, non Scn, study methods and concepts should not be omitted.
 

olska

Silver Meritorious Patron
I remember you an I had a violent disagreement on an earlier thread many months ago...

"Violent" is not a word I would use to describe a discussion conducted in written words over the internet, but as you wish...

My Statment: The biggest "barrier to study" in real life is not even included.
Your Question: What is it? Please let us know what you believe it is.

I've answered on another thread that the biggest barrier to study is thinking you already know it all. On further reflection, I'd step up from that to a more universal expression: the biggest barrier to study is a student's unwillingness to learn.

"Thinking they already know it all" is only one of several reasons that might underly that unwillingness.

What about the claim that if Joe is better than Bill in art, if Bill cleans up his M/U's he may surpass Joe. I know LRH words this differently such that Bill will not automatically be better than Joe but Bill will move closer to his full narutal abitlity. Still there is an implication given that Bill might pass Joe through clearing his m/U's. I always thought this claim did not make sense. If someone cleared up his m/u's in something, like being able to compose music, I just could never conceive that he would be any better of a composer. In a technical field like photography, I could see where clearing up a word such as "aperture" or something technical might lead to improved results with a camera but there are a lot of fields where I think clearing words would not ever cause an increase in ability.

I'm generally in favor of people clearing up unfamiliar words, or words they might have misunderstood -- in most cases, this leads to a better understanding of the subject, which in most cases will lead to an improved ability to act on that understanding through taking photographs, making art, fixing cars, cooking, perhaps even composing music.

Would clearing up all of one's M/Us on music composition by itself magically transform a person into a skilled and masterful composer? No.

IMO that idea is one of the "religious beliefs" imbedded in "scientology study tech" that is at best unproven and extremely unlikely, and at worst a dangerous false promise used by Hubbard and those who follow him to stick people to scientology and take money and other resources from vulnerable people who dream of glory and easy fixes.

Even in a case where word clearing "unlocked" a person's previously blocked talent or skill, there are other very important factors that must be in place for success in any endeavor.
 
Top