Regarding scientology "study tech":
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.