What's new

Geir Isene suggests another discussion forum

When I was in school, I had reference books a-plenty. Still do, in fact.

Anyone who is taking ANY course is put in a sort of junior or beta position. The instructor and the school are the alphas- not the student. Anyone who does not like this is going to have a lot of trouble in college, at work and pretty much anywhere else in society.

I personally believe (and have done for quite some time) that CofS' rules set forth in Student's Guide to Acceptable Behavior are a bit too rigorous and are interpreted and applied even more rigorously- robotically, even. But I have no objection to study tech and every single objection others have posted here about study tech actually pertains to the way things are done in non Scn classrooms as well- not that they're admitting it.

FWIW, it is however remarkably similar to what many considered the "ideal school room" in pre-WWII america. Amazing coincidence. :coolwink:


Mark A. Baker
 

Mystic

Crusader
Why of course open a new discussion forum. The affected and dis-affected need all the forums they can get. ESMB is loaded with Free Beings, neither affected nor dis-affected.

So yes, have lots of forums. They all evolve, and all will eventually end up at the Free Being point. The universe is made that way. Even the completely implanted totally affected still-in-the-cult will eventually evolve out of it. Sort of a matter "time" (whatever that is/is not today).
 

olska

Silver Meritorious Patron
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.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
FWIW, it is however remarkably similar to what many considered the "ideal school room" in pre-WWII america. Amazing coincidence. :coolwink:


Mark A. Baker

You are sooo funny! And observant!

Yep, it's true. In a CofS academy, one can find encyclopedias, slang dictionaries, books on vitamins, books on all sorts of things, dictionaries-- in fact, the Scn/CofS dictionaries are a mere fraction of what one finds there.
 

MostlyLurker

Patron Meritorious
Study Tech

My problem with the Study Tech is not the method itself, it is the Scientology indoctrination that comes hand in hand with it. How many students give up school to join staff?
 

altruistichedonist

Patron with Honors
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.

Brilliant assessment.:thumbsup:

How about elaborating on ...

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

I've got my answer but I'd rather not prevaricate like I do sometimes.
 

Blue Spirit

Silver Meritorious Patron
A GOOD IDEA, BUT

In regards to the OP, I think having a forum for Scientologists, still IN, is a great idea.

Just reading through Geir's board over the last couple of days as well as other boards, it's obvious to me that what's happening within the CoS is far beyond what I'd expected in terms of the number of people in the field who are disaffected with the Church. People are leaving left and right, including OTs.

ESMB is an "ex" Scientologist MB, although I've noticed that there are still those who come here and post who still believe in the Tech, which is fine. But there is no forum for those who still consider themselves to be Scientologists who are still IN the CoS.

A board like that would also provide a constant view of what's going on within the CoS - I like that idea.

Hubbard nor Miscavige ever predicted that the internet would provide such forums without having any control over it. Just imagine what the Scientologists still IN will be posting and complaining about.

Mick had a good point that the moderation as well as the constant correcting of each other willl be there, but so be it. I think that this would be a new part of the evolution of getting OUT that hasn't been there before. A natter board for those still IN. :grouch: Great idea!

A good idea, but with the unwritten rule about not going onto the

net at all, it might not work. In fact, as we all know there is an

abundance of stories and data already there, that if a 'churchie'

opens the Net door just a crack as it is now they will quickly

discover more than enough to cause their departure. Right ?

On the other hand, with the fact that correction reports are universally

ignored, and if used at all are used to punish and eventually Declare the

writers of them, it just might work, once it got going, although Ethics would

be hot after any participants.
 
Last edited:

Blue Spirit

Silver Meritorious Patron
ENTHETA

The number was far more than "several." These were courageous people - and now many are no longer with us or, one way or another, have been silenced.

While I was auditing a PC (at a break-away 'Mission'), 100 feet away in another room, a friend of mine, sitting at his desk, was approached by Scientology goon Dennis Clarke and sucker punched in the face, breaking his chair and sending him to the floor. He chased Clarke out of the building with a hammer, and Clarke sped away in a car. Clarke later became the Director of the 'Citizen's Commission of Human Rights' and is a "NEW OT 8"

Another associate, then being (harassively and frivolously) sued multiple times by Scientology, was set up for a "hit and run" Op, where another vehicle (on the Freeway, with no rear license plate) suddenly slows down in front of his car and bumps his car, and then quickly drives away.

When this person arrived home, a police officer appeared at the door. "Were you involved in a hit and run?" asked the officer. (Some anonymous person had phoned in that he had witnessed a "hit and run," conveniently describing only one car and only its license plate number.)

The (target) person paused, realizing what was happening, and said, "No." The police officer appeared relieved, and seemed to realize that something was fishy, and that person was being "set up."

If the (target) person had answered "yes," he would have been arrested (in handcuffs) for felony hit and run.

Shortly afterwards, I was harassed by a burly Scientology Private Eye/ex-disgraced cop named "Gaw" who, also, served me with a subpoena to appear in court.

Sometime later I was subpoenaed to appear at a Scientology deposition.

And I could go on.

And that's only one very tiny segment of the scene at the time.

There are many other very real and credible accounts by many people.

Some of the older spying and covert attack Ops are documented in the voluminous materials seized by the FBI in July 1977, and detail Ops against people such as L. Ron Hubbard Jr., (squirrel) Jack Horner, authors of "critical" book in the 1970s, including, of course, Paulette Cooper (Cooper's collection of docs related only to her was in three binders of several hundred pages). Then there are the Ops run in Clearwater, Fl., including on the Mayor.

And there's much much more, and it's still going on, that is IF "Tech" is still "IN."

VEDA correctly tells of the mechanics of what I could easily perceive at that

time of the early eighties an Entheta in L.A. that was very obvious in

Scientology, so thick you could cut it with a knife.

The Westwood Mission's protest meeting which was a full Sat. and Sun. was

something to behold. It blew a lot of charge for me. A large room was filled.

The hit on Bill Franks by DM occurred that weekend and was revealed during

the meeting, which caused an emotional reaction, not that he was a

particularly good guy, but LRH had appointed him ED Int, and next to

DM he appeared to be the good guy.
 

olska

Silver Meritorious Patron
Brilliant assessment.:thumbsup:

How about elaborating on ...

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

I've got my answer but I'd rather not prevaricate like I do sometimes.

The biggest barrier to study is thinking you already know it all. :coolwink:

... in my opinion, of course!
 

altruistichedonist

Patron with Honors
The biggest barrier to study is thinking you already know it all. :coolwink:

... in my opinion, of course!


Oh Crap. I'd forgotten that one. Maybe senility is starting to settle in on me.

The biggest barrier to study I had was getting my students into the courseroom without them being kidnapped by the reg. :coolwink:
 

SchwimmelPuckel

Genuine Meatball
Nah.. The biggest barrier to study.. Is believing in an authoritative figure uncritically... (Implies shutting down your own skeptism and doubts..)

:yes:
 
Top