INSIDIOUS ENSLAVEMENT:STUDY TECHNOLOGY

[gbuck]

I'm curious whether Hubbard's 'stable datum' idea might have been something he learned in the Navy. I wonder this, because I was taught something similar in the Canadian army. That was in the 1990s, but I bet it's still current, and all across NATO; I'm also pretty sure it goes back to at least WW2, because I learned it in a pretty low-level infantry leadership course. The military version is that you're supposed to make a plan by first defining your aim, then listing all the possible things you could do, then identifying all the relevant factors that might affect how well your actions would achieve your aim; then the critical step was to identify the critical factor, and let it determine your plan.

There's an obvious element of stupidity in that kind of planning: you can hardly count on every problem having exactly one 'critical factor' that is so important as to be decisive all by itself. Armies aren't actually stupid, though. That kind of planning was to be used in battle, even under fire, and the point of it was that you needed to reach a decision fast, despite having limited information and being under mind-crushing stress. Speed of action could be so important, in fact, that a decent plan made quickly was far better than a great plan that took too long to formulate. There's just no way to make a plan quickly if you have to juggle many issues, so the military procedure is to pick the most important issue and just deal with it.

And in fact that way of thinking is less stupid in practice than you might think it would be, even when you're not in the heat of battle. Even when you have time to try to accommodate many factors in your plans, doing so often just leads to over-thinking and self-defeating perfectionism. Military officers are usually quite intelligent, in my experience, but they are actively trained not to over-think things, and there's some real wisdom in that, at least some of the time.

On the other hand, the military focus on a single factor is a method of decision-making, not a way of learning or deciding what to believe. It's intended to reduce the mental burden on commanders who are under incredible stress, but re-purposing it as a way to deal with general 'confusion' is certainly perverse.

I'm just wondering whether Hubbard maybe got the original idea from the navy.

The stable datum may have practical use in the world of doing things, to put it simply.
The danger is it's use psychologically or spiritually.
The use of a stable datum can only logically lead to philosophies, religions, cults, world views, and a non-ending list of possible and probable abuse.
This is tricky stuff.

 

[programmer_guy]

“A confusion can be defined as any set of factors or circumstances which do not seem to have any immediate solution. More broadly, a confusion is random motion.”
“Until one selects one datum, one factor, one particular in a confusion of particles, the confusion continues. The one thing selected and used becomes thestable datum for the remainder. ​This is a lie. In fact it's stupid to select anything if you're confused.
“Any body of knowledge, more particularly and exactly, is built from one datum. That is its stable datum. Invalidate it and the entire body of knowledge falls apart. A stable datum does not have to be the correct one. It is simply the one that keeps things from being in a confusion and on which others are aligned.” – L. Ron Hubbard [ref]


Firstly, I want to say that you. and others here, are doing a fantastic job of enquiring into, and laying out, the theory,methods, and application, of fucking with the minds of others as used by LRH and the $cio brigade [who may, or may not know WTF they’re even doing]


The beauty of it is that it resonates with many people here. The suspicion that 'something wasn't quite right, but I don’t know what, maybe it’s only me!’ The induced battle between confusion and certainty.


After reading Gib’s post today I went back to re-read your earlier posts. Wow.


My kids would say: ‘He’s longing it!’……..You’re not……….The WTF, exactly, occurred ?………Invaluable.




Ronnie has shot himself in the foot, fortunately.


Any body of knowledge, more particularly and exactly, is built from one datum. That is its stable datum. Invalidate it and the entire body of knowledge falls apart. A stable datum does not have to be the correct one. It is simply the one that keeps things from being in a confusion and on which others are aligned.” – L. Ron Hubbard [ref]


Strangely enough, in the present context, there is truth in this.


For me, the stable [ what!!!] datums, that lie at the core of the system set the stage for all that follows.


If you take them onboard then you get:


Rons definition of the self.


Rons delusions of the eternal battle between Theta and Mest.


And all the mind fucking SOLUTIONS that follow.


It starts at the beginning.


And it ends at the beginning.


It will all crumble down when questioned.


Don’t fall for the bullshit of "It’s a Workable System”


Because it is workable, it produces enslavement.

IMO, it's not about stable data (for religion).
It's about "world view".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view

It's sort of a mental jig-saw puzzle where all the pieces fit nicely together about judgements of what is right and wrong.
This is why some people recommend (with family & friends) to not discuss politics nor religion.
Why? because these are central pieces of a person's jig-saw puzzle of their view of life.
If you question those central pieces of that stuff then some people can get angry.

Suppose that I told a christian that the beginnings of that religion was a concoction/mixture of ancient Egyptian mythology and the Hebrew religion that was promoted in the 1st century. What do you think their reaction would be?
They would think that I am being influenced by Satan (another part of their "world view").

 

[gbuck]

IMO, it's not about stable data (for religion).
It's about "world view".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view

It's sort of a mental jig-saw puzzle where all the pieces fit nicely together about judgements of what is right and wrong.
This is why some people recommend (with family & friends) to not discuss politics nor religion.
Why? because these are central pieces of a person's jig-saw puzzle of their view of life.
If you question those central pieces of that stuff then some people can get angry.

Suppose that I told a christian that the beginnings of that religion was a concoction/mixture of ancient Egyptian mythology and the Hebrew religion that was promoted in the 1st century. What do you think their reaction would be?
They would think that I am being influenced by Satan (another part of their "world view").

Yep, don't I know it!
and I've got no right, or willingness, to attempt to disassemble anyones world view. I prefer dialogue not argument.
I wouldn't appreciate somebody "doing me a favour" and "helping" by demolishing my central beliefs.
Although, did you see the 'Allegory of the Cave', posted by TAJ?

but I do want to understand my world view, where TF did it come from?
and I don't want to take it as a given, unexamined,
This forum shows the danger of many of us having done just that....

 

[Enthetan]

I'm curious whether Hubbard's 'stable datum' idea might have been something he learned in the Navy. I wonder this, because I was taught something similar in the Canadian army. That was in the 1990s, but I bet it's still current, and all across NATO; I'm also pretty sure it goes back to at least WW2, because I learned it in a pretty low-level infantry leadership course. The military version is that you're supposed to make a plan by first defining your aim, then listing all the possible things you could do, then identifying all the relevant factors that might affect how well your actions would achieve your aim; then the critical step was to identify the critical factor, and let it determine your plan.

There's an obvious element of stupidity in that kind of planning: you can hardly count on every problem having exactly one 'critical factor' that is so important as to be decisive all by itself. Armies aren't actually stupid, though. That kind of planning was to be used in battle, even under fire, and the point of it was that you needed to reach a decision fast, despite having limited information and being under mind-crushing stress. Speed of action could be so important, in fact, that a decent plan made quickly was far better than a great plan that took too long to formulate. There's just no way to make a plan quickly if you have to juggle many issues, so the military procedure is to pick the most important issue and just deal with it.

And in fact that way of thinking is less stupid in practice than you might think it would be, even when you're not in the heat of battle. Even when you have time to try to accommodate many factors in your plans, doing so often just leads to over-thinking and self-defeating perfectionism. Military officers are usually quite intelligent, in my experience, but they are actively trained not to over-think things, and there's some real wisdom in that, at least some of the time.

On the other hand, the military focus on a single factor is a method of decision-making, not a way of learning or deciding what to believe. It's intended to reduce the mental burden on commanders who are under incredible stress, but re-purposing it as a way to deal with general 'confusion' is certainly perverse.

I'm just wondering whether Hubbard maybe got the original idea from the navy.

I think he did. The US military has similar things, especially about, in the confusion of battle, that ANY reasonable plan, boldly carried out, is better than indecision.

ADDING: My wife sometimes has episodes of indecision when shopping, going "I can't decide if I want brand A or brand B". I drive her crazy with my stable datum "well, if neither choice is obviously better than the other, then I'll just grab whichever is closest to my hand, and let's move on".

 

[Intentionally Blank]

Good thread. Good observations. Just thought I would add my 2 cents from experience, which I posted in the past, elsewhere.

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.

Mary, thanks for sharing that. I can't even imagine how such a system can even be considered a place of 'learning'. Every day I find something here that explains so many inexplicable things I've experienced at home over the years. It adds a lot of missing pieces to the puzzle. This thread has been amazing.

 

[AnonyMary]

Mary, thanks for sharing that. I can't even imagine how such a system can even be considered a place of 'learning'. Every day I find something here that explains so many inexplicable things I've experienced at home over the years. It adds a lot of missing pieces to the puzzle. This thread has been amazing.

Glad to be of help.

I posted the below in another thread yesterday but I can't stress enough how important it is for those with loved ones still in to understand the cognitive dissonance scientologists are dealing with. If you have not already looked into this, I suggest you do as soon as you can.

Phenom, another thing I suggest, something for you actually, is to take a look at these 3 short Prezi video demonstrations created by Heidi Macavoy aka AnonLover, which discuss and demonstrate how cognitive dissonance works with scientologists and how to approach it. This is good for anyone trying to talk sense with a scientologist.

Waking Up From Scientology (Part 1)
"Cognitive Dissonance vs. Cognitive Flexibility: Scientology is a closed belief system that exerts an undue influence over the cognitive processes of adherents. Breaking free of coercive persuasion is no easy task and requires changing how you think."
http://prezi.com/cvz4qlmscuzx/waking-up-from-scientology-part-1/

Waking Up From Scientology (Part 2)
Cognitive Dissonance vs. Moral Dissonance & Related Coping Mechanisms for Dealing with Undue Influence. Understanding the different reactions caused by dissonance can be used to help loved ones trapped in the bubble of Scientology to break free.
http://prezi.com/hhuioj5hmqya/waking-up-from-scientology-part-2/

Waking Up From Scientology (Part 3)
How to communicate with Scientologists using active listening techniques & thought-provoking questions to help cult members break free of undue influence by triggering moral dissonance. (This presentation is still a work in progress.)
http://prezi.com/vcy0fu8w1nzu/waking-up-from-scientology-part-3/


You can see Parts 1 & 2 on youtube as well

Waking Up From The Scientology Trance (Part 1)
http://youtu.be/YezRlAAdGWo

Waking Up From The Scientology Trance (Part 2)
http://youtu.be/_1nqSkCkGcw?list=UUWOowB62xToQElT6UF1opTQ


PDF transcripts:

Part 1
http://www.scribd.com/doc/220118372/Waking-Up-From-the-Scientology-Trance-Part-1

Part 2
PDF transcript: http://www.scribd.com/doc/229521361/Waking-Up-From-the-Scientology-Trance-Part-2

Part 3 pending

 

[gbuck]

Mary, thanks for sharing that. I can't even imagine how such a system can even be considered a place of 'learning'. Every day I find something here that explains so many inexplicable things I've experienced at home over the years. It adds a lot of missing pieces to the puzzle. This thread has been amazing.

I've found a lot of the threads here have been, literally, mind blowing.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]I think you started a thread '[FONT=Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]Can someone explain the value of "Not Thinking” in Scientology' [/FONT]and it's been bugging me ever since.[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]Sometimes I think in pictures, it’s cool, sometimes I just think, and sometimes….I ponder, sometimes, I think ...a question.[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]I don’t quite know how to ask a question with pictures?
sorry about that![/FONT]

 

[cleared cannibal]

I am beginning to believe that the way scientology works is that the processing causes one to lose or question their stable datums and the training replaces these stable data with Hubbard desired stable data. Of the two routes up the bridge I have come to the conclusion that the training side is much more sinister as this is where the insidious aspect comes. Actually I still think the processing can be beneficial at least in the lower levels. At least for me, some place on the grades this loss of stable data begins to occur. My problems on the processing side were not so insidious. I knew something was wrong. Looking back I feel I was extremely lucky . The CS(and everyone else) wanted me to go to flag for the case cracker run down. Who knows what would have happened had I done this. The way it was I was able to get away from the tech to work things out on my own and come up with my own answers to an extent.

 

[Intentionally Blank]

I've found a lot of the threads here have been, literally, mind blowing.
I think you started a thread 'Can someone explain the value of "Not Thinking” in Scientology' and it's been bugging me ever since.
Sometimes I think in pictures, it’s cool, sometimes I just think, and sometimes….I ponder, sometimes, I think ...a question.
I don’t quite know how to ask a question with pictures?
sorry about that!

Heh. Yeah, that was me Glad to be of service.

I have always 'seen' things in words and pictures. So, for example, my sister had two really good friends with the same name. One was Ann and the other was Anne. To this day (more years later than I am going to admit) when I think of either of them I see their names, with correct spelling, superimposed on the visual image.

The point of my question on that thread, though, wasn't so much about --how-- one thinks so much as it was about the fact that we --do-- think. There are probably an infinite number of ways we think and process information. Or at least as many billions as there have been humans. I did a class once that included guided meditations. Some of my classmates twisted themselves into knots because they couldn't "see" the images suggested in the meditation. Very interesting. They could imagine words or smells or feelings etc.

Mr/s Blanky refuses to admit to thinking. Ever. S/he Does. Not. Think. Which, after reading Mary's post that I quoted above, may not be too far from reality. (Oh, wait, that's a loaded word too )

 

[Intentionally Blank]

Glad to be of help.

I posted the below in another thread yesterday but I can't stress enough how important it is for those with loved ones still in to understand the cognitive dissonance scientologists are dealing with. If you have not already looked into this, I suggest you do as soon as you can.

Thank you. I've watched Parts 1 and 2. I'll tune in for 3.

We've been having some interesting instances of dissonance rising to the surface - now that I know a little more about how to poke at the bubble - and where.

 

[Gib]

I am beginning to believe that the way scientology works is that the processing causes one to lose or question their stable datums and the training replaces these stable data with Hubbard desired stable data. Of the two routes up the bridge I have come to the conclusion that the training side is much more sinister as this is where the insidious aspect comes. Actually I still think the processing can be beneficial at least in the lower levels. At least for me, some place on the grades this loss of stable data begins to occur. My problems on the processing side were not so insidious. I knew something was wrong. Looking back I feel I was extremely lucky . The CS(and everyone else) wanted me to go to flag for the case cracker run down. Who knows what would have happened had I done this. The way it was I was able to get away from the tech to work things out on my own and come up with my own answers to an extent.

I agree. Hubbard said training was half the gains, but that statement by him was actually to get us to indoctrinate ourselves with his, as you state, desired stable datums.

 

[Gib]

“A confusion can be defined as any set of factors or circumstances which do not seem to have any immediate solution. More broadly, a confusion is random motion.”
“Until one selects one datum, one factor, one particular in a confusion of particles, the confusion continues. The one thing selected and used becomes thestable datum for the remainder. ​This is a lie. In fact it's stupid to select anything if you're confused.
“Any body of knowledge, more particularly and exactly, is built from one datum. That is its stable datum. Invalidate it and the entire body of knowledge falls apart. A stable datum does not have to be the correct one. It is simply the one that keeps things from being in a confusion and on which others are aligned.” – L. Ron Hubbard [ref]


Firstly, I want to say that you. and others here, are doing a fantastic job of enquiring into, and laying out, the theory,methods, and application, of fucking with the minds of others as used by LRH and the $cio brigade [who may, or may not know WTF they’re even doing]


The beauty of it is that it resonates with many people here. The suspicion that 'something wasn't quite right, but I don’t know what, maybe it’s only me!’ The induced battle between confusion and certainty.


After reading Gib’s post today I went back to re-read your earlier posts. Wow.


My kids would say: ‘He’s longing it!’……..You’re not……….The WTF, exactly, occurred ?………Invaluable.




Ronnie has shot himself in the foot, fortunately.


Any body of knowledge, more particularly and exactly, is built from one datum. That is its stable datum. Invalidate it and the entire body of knowledge falls apart. A stable datum does not have to be the correct one. It is simply the one that keeps things from being in a confusion and on which others are aligned.” – L. Ron Hubbard [ref]


Strangely enough, in the present context, there is truth in this.


For me, the stable [ what!!!] datums, that lie at the core of the system set the stage for all that follows.


If you take them onboard then you get:


Rons definition of the self.


Rons delusions of the eternal battle between Theta and Mest.


And all the mind fucking SOLUTIONS that follow.


It starts at the beginning.


And it ends at the beginning.


It will all crumble down when questioned.


Don’t fall for the bullshit of "It’s a Workable System”


Because it is workable, it produces enslavement.

Thanks for your kind words, gbuck. I'm just researching and posting what I research as I research.

I hope you get a chance to read the link I provided above. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Source_and_Aim_of_Human_Progress

It is a long read, I'm about half way thru. This Boris Sidis sure said some hard hitting things for which Hubbard stole and reworded & retermed. Since I have read most of Hubbards books and lectures I have a pretty good background to compare and see what Hubbard did. I wish I was a better writer to be able to communicate more clearly what I research, but I'm not. I can only point to the research.

For instance, it looks like Hubbard proclaimed the one command given to life, as he said in Dianetics, was "Survive".

It seems to me Hubbard got "Survive" from Boris Sidis, 1922:

http://www.sidis.net/nervousillschap1.htm

where self-preservation = survive

 

[cleared cannibal]

Thanks for your kind words, gbuck. I'm just researching and posting what I research as I research.

I hope you get a chance to read the link I provided above. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Source_and_Aim_of_Human_Progress

It is a long read, I'm about half way thru. This Boris Sidis sure said some hard hitting things for which Hubbard stole and reworded & retermed. Since I have read most of Hubbards books and lectures I have a pretty good background to compare and see what Hubbard did. I wish I was a better writer to be able to communicate more clearly what I research, but I'm not. I can only point to the research.

For instance, it looks like Hubbard proclaimed the one command given to life, as he said in Dianetics, was "Survive".

It seems to me Hubbard got "Survive" from Boris Sidis, 1922:

http://www.sidis.net/nervousillschap1.htm

where self-preservation = survive

You know I have sort of a disagreement with the idea of the"survive" goal of all life. Go to a nursing home and look around. I feel many there just afraid of death. A subtle but I feel an important difference. The only goal is not to die. This disagreement didn't go over well in the course room.

 

[gbuck]

Thanks for your kind words, gbuck. I'm just researching and posting what I research as I research.

I hope you get a chance to read the link I provided above. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Source_and_Aim_of_Human_Progress

It is a long read, I'm about half way thru. This Boris Sidis sure said some hard hitting things for which Hubbard stole and reworded & retermed. Since I have read most of Hubbards books and lectures I have a pretty good background to compare and see what Hubbard did. I wish I was a better writer to be able to communicate more clearly what I research, but I'm not. I can only point to the research.

For instance, it looks like Hubbard proclaimed the one command given to life, as he said in Dianetics, was "Survive".

It seems to me Hubbard got "Survive" from Boris Sidis, 1922:

http://www.sidis.net/nervousillschap1.htm

where self-preservation = survive

Thanks for the links, I'll have time to take a look over the next few days. Writing for me is not so easy either, probably too much to say, and my mouth isn't big enough!
plus I don't talk as I seem, to have to write. No big deal, can only do what I do.
Is that another of those bloody tautologies?

 

[Gib]

You know I have sort of a disagreement with the idea of the"survive" goal of all life. Go to a nursing home and look around. I feel many there just afraid of death. A subtle but I feel an important difference. The only goal is not to die. This disagreement didn't go over well in the course room.

The article by Boris Sidis says "survive" and "fear".

What's interesting is that Hubbard left off the "fear" part.

And why?

Just my conjecture, but Hubbard used "fear" throughout his writings in policy letters, lectures, books, etc. He also use "mystery". Perfect example is OT3 when one has not gone up the Bridge to that level. He got people to "fear" OT3, and at the same time created a "mystery" about it, as he alone figured out how to unlock the secrets of this sector of the galaxy so others could learn the secret. what a bunch of horseshit.

Hubbard even wrote a book before dianetics and scientology called "fear" I believe.

It's all part of Hubbards use of Rhetoric.

edit: I forgot to mention. What happens, according to Hubbard, when you go past a MU?

Hubbrd invokes pure "fear" when one does, in the scientology construct.

What happens if one misses a withhold while auditing a pc?

all fear.

 

[gbuck]

You know I have sort of a disagreement with the idea of the"survive" goal of all life. Go to a nursing home and look around. I feel many there just afraid of death. A subtle but I feel an important difference. The only goal is not to die. This disagreement didn't go over well in the course room.

Can't be afraid of something if you don't know what it is.
Can be afraid of what you imagine it is.
Can be afraid of losing......

It's possible that fear is not neccessary?
....just askin'

 

[gbuck]

Thanks for your kind words, gbuck. I'm just researching and posting what I research as I research.

I hope you get a chance to read the link I provided above. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Source_and_Aim_of_Human_Progress

It is a long read, I'm about half way thru. This Boris Sidis sure said some hard hitting things for which Hubbard stole and reworded & retermed. Since I have read most of Hubbards books and lectures I have a pretty good background to compare and see what Hubbard did. I wish I was a better writer to be able to communicate more clearly what I research, but I'm not. I can only point to the research.

For instance, it looks like Hubbard proclaimed the one command given to life, as he said in Dianetics, was "Survive".

It seems to me Hubbard got "Survive" from Boris Sidis, 1922:

http://www.sidis.net/nervousillschap1.htm

where self-preservation = survive

Gib, I've got about a third of the way with the Boris Sidris paper in the first link. It's not as heavy as I feared it might be.
I had no idea that there was any work done on the mechanics of suggestibility. He shows the depth of suggestibility that can, and is, obtainable.
And the subject doesn't know, or has no awareness of, what is driving his reactions or even from where a thought originated, he believes that it is his.
The implications, when applied to 'study tek', become obvious. It's another way into the puzzle of, WTF? happened there.

Was perfectly happy to use the dictionary. The only, only, only bit of tek, I personally found of any use. But then, almost anyone would have given that advice, if asked.

 

[Gib]

Gib, I've got about a third of the way with the Boris Sidris paper in the first link. It's not as heavy as I feared it might be.
I had no idea that there was any work done on the mechanics of suggestibility. He shows the depth of suggestibility that can, and is, obtainable.
And the subject doesn't know, or has no awareness of, what is driving his reactions or even from where a thought originated, he believes that it is his.
The implications, when applied to 'study tek', become obvious. It's another way into the puzzle of, WTF? happened there.

Was perfectly happy to use the dictionary. The only, only, only bit of tek, I personally found of any use. But then, almost anyone would have given that advice, if asked.

I too had no idea there was work done of the mechanics of suggestibility. Whenever I researched in the past I always googled "hypnosis", or it's other known names.

Nothing wrong with looking up words, that's why the dictionary was invented. The scientology courseroom of only reading Ron, etc that is the hypnosis, IMHO.

I found a website giving all of Boris Sidis books one can read online. Here it is:

http://www.sidis.net/boris_sidis_archives.htm

I read the first one. I'm starting in the next one. I'm trying to figure out how the long con was done, with more specific data to present. I don't know how familiar you are with dianetics, policy letters, red on white, etc, but I'm pretty familiar with it all. That first book by Sidis, Hubbard stole a lot from it, Hubbard just very cleverly reworded it and expanded on what Sidis said and discovered. And Hubbard hyped the shit out of everything, which we know and is actually a fraud of major proportion.

Like "reverie" is basically the hypnoidal state that Sidis discovered. The online definition is a little lacking.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypnoidal

In the first book by Sidis, the several vary last chapters of crowd & mod suggestion are very enlightening, and hubbard retermed it to "contagion of aberration".

I really wish somebody who is a better writer than me, and somebody who was well trained in the tech would read Sidis, and give their comparison study of both.

From the website, this is an interesting read and gives a brief outline including Freud.

http://www.sidis.net/americanmagazine2.htm

Here is something I found today and had no idea there was a "Hypnotism Act of 1952"

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6and1Eliz2/15-16/46

ps: reading this stuff isn't too bad I found as well once one gets a gist of the lingo. Same with Plato, Aristotle, etc.
Another one of Hubbard's lie saying it's a mindfield to read the Masters.

 

[gbuck]

I too had no idea there was work done of the mechanics of suggestibility. Whenever I researched in the past I always googled "hypnosis", or it's other known names.

Nothing wrong with looking up words, that's why the dictionary was invented. The scientology courseroom of only reading Ron, etc that is the hypnosis, IMHO.

I found a website giving all of Boris Sidis books one can read online. Here it is:

http://www.sidis.net/boris_sidis_archives.htm

I read the first one. I'm starting in the next one. I'm trying to figure out how the long con was done, with more specific data to present. I don't know how familiar you are with dianetics, policy letters, red on white, etc, but I'm pretty familiar with it all. That first book by Sidis, Hubbard stole a lot from it, Hubbard just very cleverly reworded it and expanded on what Sidis said and discovered. And Hubbard hyped the shit out of everything, which we know and is actually a fraud of major proportion.

Like "reverie" is basically the hypnoidal state that Sidis discovered. The online definition is a little lacking.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypnoidal

In the first book by Sidis, the several vary last chapters of crowd & mod suggestion are very enlightening, and hubbard retermed it to "contagion of aberration".

I really wish somebody who is a better writer than me, and somebody who was well trained in the tech would read Sidis, and give their comparison study of both.

From the website, this is an interesting read and gives a brief outline including Freud.

http://www.sidis.net/americanmagazine2.htm

Here is something I found today and had no idea there was a "Hypnotism Act of 1952"

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6and1Eliz2/15-16/46

ps: reading this stuff isn't too bad I found as well once one gets a gist of the lingo. Same with Plato, Aristotle, etc.
Another one of Hubbard's lie saying it's a mindfield to read the Masters.

Wow, that's a lot of reading!
Fortunately or not, I'm retired.
Reading through this work It's remarkable how an understanding of it gets simpler and simpler! Even though it appears to be complex and daunting!
Despite many views to the contrary I keep thinking of dear old Merv. There's learning to be got from the wise and the idiotic, God knows which one he is.
But a wiser man said that observing our own reactions to challenges or questions from others or from whatever stimulus, can be read as the book of ourselves.
Merv sure got a variety of reactions! Fortunately, I don't care who or what he is. Unfortunately, I can't help but speculate.

Thanks for the links.

 

[Gib]

Wow, that's a lot of reading!
Fortunately or not, I'm retired.
Reading through this work It's remarkable how an understanding of it gets simpler and simpler! Even though it appears to be complex and daunting!
Despite many views to the contrary I keep thinking of dear old Merv. There's learning to be got from the wise and the idiotic, God knows which one he is.
But a wiser man said that observing our own reactions to challenges or questions from others or from whatever stimulus, can be read as the book of ourselves.
Merv sure got a variety of reactions! Fortunately, I don't care who or what he is. Unfortunately, I can't help but speculate.

Thanks for the links.

fuk the poster "mearvk" which you have coined as Merv.

I'm only trying to get peeps to read Sidis and compare to Hubbard's Dianetics.

Here's the question I now pose:

Did Hubbard model Dianetics from what Sidis published?

Did Hubbard steal from Sidis and reword it?

Did Hubbard steal from Sidis and use what he discovered to entrap people?

The only way to know this is to read Sidis as I provided the website with full links to his books which one can read online, and then compare it to Dianetics and even scientology.

So, I pose this question?

Will anybody out there who is reading this post make the comparison other than me? And post here on this tread the comparison of their reading of Sidis vs Hubbard?