Plagiarism

LA SCN

NOT drinking the kool-aid
Good, AJ -

I have never yet heard a scientific lecture, or a humanities lecture, or ever heard at any conference, or read in any professional journal anything that did attribute and give the reference for any ideas that are not commonplace. It just isn't done. There is no fallacy of sourcing in scientific or humanities professionalism.
Hubbard rarely gives exact credit yet demands of all others that they always give the exact reference for the things he said.
He took credit for the original ideas of others.

The Anabaptist Jacques

This may help shed some light on this meter discussion. Even the use of prepared lists for assessment was not from LRH.

From http://www.clearingtech.net/article4.html :

The History of the CB-Meter (alternative e-meter)
Adapted from an article
by Gregory Mitchell

Today the Clearing Biofeedback Meter is one of the simplest and most effective tools of modem psychological research, but historically it was also one of the first. Its development and use has grown from its first beginnings in 1888, when Tarchinoff discovered the phenomenon of skin resistance. He found that a person's resistance to the passage of a tiny electric current through hand held electrodes would vary according to the subject's emotional state. The simple psycho-galvonometer he invented to investigate this phenomenon was one of the earliest tools of psychological research.

One of its earliest applications was in the work of Wilhelm Wundt in his Leipzig laboratory in the late 1890's, where he used an early form of CB-Meter to measure body electricity, as part of his line of research known as psychophysics.

The modern CB-Meter, or Clearing Biofeedback Meter, is a specialized form of biofeedback device: an electronic instrument designed to measure mental state and changes of mental state accurately and quickly. It is a modified version of what is known to psychologists as the psycho-galvonometer, which measures the relative magnitude of the electrodermal orienting response, that is, the changes of skin resistance that occur when external stimuli are applied to a subject.

A basic axiom of psychoanalysis as originated by Freud is that we are restricted from realizing more than a fraction of our full potential, because of the repressed negative content of the unconscious mind: negative fears, resentments, motivations and dislikes. Although much of this unconscious content may have been correct at the time it was formed, this content is often no longer valid from the viewpoint of an adult. When the content is made conscious and confronted by the adult mind, it dissolves and loses its power to restrain thought and action, and there is release of positive creative energy.

The CB-Meter is one of the most effective diagnostic tools in locating this negative content-a real time saver. The therapist does not have to spend years of blind probing to find out the root of a problem. With the CB-Meter he can tune into and identify any negative energy, then discharge it.

The first reference to the use of this instrument in psychoanalytic research is in the book by Carl Gustav Jung, Studies in Word Analysis, published in 1906. Here the Swiss psychologist describes a technique of connecting the subject, via hand electrodes, to an instrument measuring changes in the resistance of the skin, while words are read to him from a prepared list. If a word on this list was emotionally charged, there was change in body resistance, causing a deflection of the needle of the galvanometer. Thus, Jung worked on locating and discharging negative unconscious material.

This method of research, which Jung had been using at least since the early 1900's, was again referred to in a basic psychology text of 1926 entitled Experimental Psychology, by Mary Collins and James Dreaver, lecturers in psychology at the University of Edinburgh. Also at this time other early psychologists were researching the electrical characteristics of emotion and thought. Semon, in his book The Mneme (circa 1915) defines an engram as the permanent change produced within an organism from a stimulus, wherein a trace of the experience of that stimulus is "written on" the organism and forms part of memory. When the stimulus is repeated, the energy which it sets free flows through this new engram with the result that it takes a more or less different path, and consequently leads to a more or less different form of reaction. Knowledge of these findings was widespread in the 1920's. They are referred to again in a classroom text called The Psychology of the Thinker by l.B. Saxby, Lecturer in Education at the University College, Cardiff.

However, the early psycho-galvonometer was not at all simple to use, because it had no amplification. It remained as a specialized laboratory instrument only, until the development of more sophisticated amplifiers in the 1930's. Its use in specialized laboratory research in the fields of medicine and psychiatry continues to the present day. Electrodermal response is used in many areas of psychology and psychiatry, for example in the diagnosis and treatment of schizophrenia, as evinced by A.S. Bemstein's paper entitled "The Galvanic Skin Response Orienting Reflex in Chronic Schizophrenics" (Psychonomic Science l), and further publication of his research on electrodermal orienting and habituation in the treatment of schizophrenia done at Charing Cross Hospital Medical School was published in Psychological Medicine, Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Since the time of Jung and the other early researchers, a number of other biofeedback instruments have been invented, including the ElectroEncephalograph or EEG, which is used by a wide range of therapists and psychologists. For example, Janov used the EEG to evaluate the effectiveness of cathartic therapy, and, at the other end of the spectrum, osteopaths have used a modified form of skin resistance meter for diagnostic purposes.

As most early research in skin resistance phenomena was done in Germany, the war curtailed further development in these areas, apart from some work in America on lie-detectors. So it was not until the late 1940's that some applications of an independent American researcher, Volney Mathieson, working with the polygraph lie-detector as used in courts of law, kindled a renewed interest in the earlier German work of Jung and others.

Now advances could be made in the technology of psychotherapy using the earlier discoveries that all fears, feelings and resentments, in fact, all thought and emotion, were electrical in nature. When a person was reminded of certain past events, or when a change of mood was induced in him/her, the needle in the detector would jump erratically; the degree of jump was in proportion to the strength of the unconscious reaction. In skilled hands the meter could be used to locate a particular content, the nature of that content, the location of that content in space and time, and the amount of force contained within it.

This work led to the development of the modem type of CB-Meter, a type that has survived, with very little modification, until the present day. Specifically, this was a meter designed to simply and clearly register the mental and emotional response of a person to a word, question or situation, rather than as a lie-detector. The CB-Meter is several times as sensitive as the lie-detector and is able to indicate the intensity of response.

Volney Mathieson presented these ideas to Ron Hubbard, the inventor of Dianetics, in 1952. A version of the meter known as the E-Meter (Electro-psychoMeter) was later put into widespread use in Scientology and Dianetics, in conjunction with procedures which are essentially and recognizably Jungian.

In many modern types of Clearing the practitioner would use Jungs' method of presenting a list of words in conjunction with the meter. He would ask the subject under analysis to take hold of the meter electrodes, then he would read this list of words to him. Without fail, some of these words would trigger a response on the meter, sometimes violently. When this happened, the therapist would know that these words were associated with violent and negative fear or resentment, that had its origin in various unconscious thought complexes in the subjects' mind. Usually the subject was quite unaware that he was reacting on the meter in this way.

The therapist would record all words that produced erratic meter readings, then have the person talk about them. As the subject discussed his associations with a "charged" word, the meter would gradually become less erratic and settle down to a normal reading.

Once the locked-up energy has been discharged, the meter no longer responds to the word or concept under discussion. The complex or block had discharged, rather like discharging a car battery.
 
Yep Hubbard never even heard of galvanic skin response until Volney Mathieson introduced it to him after he wrote Dianetics, and then Hubbard conveniently took credit for it as he did with everything else he happened to run across and tried to sell as his own.
 
Is it all based on one man’s work?
Although Dianetics and Scientology were discovered by L. Ron Hubbard, he wrote: “Acknowledgment is made to fifty thousand years of thinking men without whose speculations and observations the creation and construction of Dianetics would not have been possible. Credit in particular is due to:
“Anaxagoras, Thomas Paine, Aristotle, Thomas Jefferson, Socrates, René Descartes, Plato, James Clerk Maxwell, Euclid, Charcot, Lucretius, Herbert Spencer, Roger Bacon, William James, Francis Bacon, Sigmund Freud, Isaac Newton, van Leeuwenhoek, Cmdr. Joseph Thompson (MC) USN, William A. White, Voltaire, Will Durant, Count Alfred Korzybski, and my instructors in atomic and molecular phenomena, mathematics and the humanities at George Washington University and at Princeton.”
http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part12/Chp36/pg0636-a.html

Scientology fundamentals By L. Ron Hubbard
Yet the philosophic root of Dianetics and Scientology, the core truth upon which all is based, could hardly be simpler: “The spirit is the source of all,” Ron tells us, “You are a spirit.”
http://www.ronthephilosopher.org/phlspher/page42.htm

This is not attributing anything specific. This sounds like an Academy Award speech.

When you use someone else's original idea you give them credit for that specific idea at the time you use it.

If you have ever seen any profession journal or academic work you would know that.

There is a reason that professionals never took Hubbard seriously--he was a fraud!

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

Veda

Sponsor
-snip to save space-

Volney Mathieson presented these ideas to Ron Hubbard, the inventor of Dianetics, in 1952. A version of the meter known as the E-Meter (Electro-psychoMeter) was later put into widespread use in Scientology and Dianetics, in conjunction with procedures which are essentially and recognizably Jungian.

In many modern types of Clearing the practitioner would use Jungs' method of presenting a list of words in conjunction with the meter. He would ask the subject under analysis to take hold of the meter electrodes, then he would read this list of words to him. Without fail, some of these words would trigger a response on the meter, sometimes violently. When this happened, the therapist would know that these words were associated with violent and negative fear or resentment, that had its origin in various unconscious thought complexes in the subjects' mind. Usually the subject was quite unaware that he was reacting on the meter in this way.

The therapist would record all words that produced erratic meter readings, then have the person talk about them. As the subject discussed his associations with a "charged" word, the meter would gradually become less erratic and settle down to a normal reading.

Once the locked-up energy has been discharged, the meter no longer responds to the word or concept under discussion. The complex or block had discharged, rather like discharging a car battery.

Unfortunately, in Scientology, the meter is used in other ways. It's often combined with suggestion (manipulation), which is most concentrated and notable in its psychological-suggestion-loaded "upper levels"; it can be used as a police interrogation device, or as a means of training others to not think "critical" thoughts (thought policing), - "Have you ever had unkind thoughts about LRH?" etc. - to avoid the repercussions and implications ("You have overts/crimes") of thinking such thoughts (which, the person is told, will hinder his progress to 'Total Freedom'.)

An examination of the background and positive application of meters is fine, but a complete examination, addressing both positives and the negatives would be refreshing. Such are rare.
 

Peter Soderqvist

Patron with Honors
You can't possibly be serious ... can you? Have you ever read Keep Scientology Working? Hubbard was a con man trying to building, plain and simple.

Soderqvist1: I mean what I said!
It is possible to see something from other points of view, not just that one you prefer!

Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter on Safeguarding Technology
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 FEBRUARY 1965 Remimeo
All Hats BPI Keeping Scientology Working Series 4 SAFEGUARDING TECHNOLOGY [...]

In fifty thousand years of history on this planet alone, man never evolved a workable system. It is doubtful if, in foreseeable history, he will ever evolve another. Man is caught in a huge and complex labyrinth. To get out of it requires that he follow the closely-taped path of Scientology. Scientology will take him out of the labyrinth. But only if he follows the exact markings in the tunnels. It has taken me a third of a century in this lifetime to tape this route out. It has been proven that efforts by man to find different routes came to nothing. It is also a clear fact that the route called Scientology does lead out of the labyrinth. Therefore it is a workable system, a route that can be traveled. What would you think of a guide who, because his party said it was dark and the road rough and who said another tunnel looked better, abandoned the route he knew would lead out and led his party to a lost nowhere in the dark. You’d think he was a pretty wishy-washy guide. [...]

Soderqvist1: it seems to me that Ron believed in the workability of his technology!
And advising against other ways as other religious leaders often does!

People have following the route mixed up with "the right to have their own ideas." Anyone is certainly entitled to have opinions and ideas and cognitions—so long as these do not bar the route out for self and others.

Soderqvist1: here it is!
I have read lot of books both pro and con, and neutral and it has not bar me from the route!
As linked by me earlier, Hubbard even urge me to do so in order to be Pan-Determined!

Fundamentals of Thought
Page 16: There is the principle in Scientology called pan-determinism. This could be loosely defined as determining the activities of two or more sides in a game simultaneously. For instance, a person playing chess is being self-determined and is playing chess against an opponent. A person who is pan-determined on the subject of chess could play both sides of the board. A being is pan-determined about any game to which he is senior. He is self-determined only in a game to which he is junior. For instance, a general of an army is pan-determined concerning an argument between two privates or even two companies of his command. He is pan-determined in this case; but when he confronts another army, led by another general, he becomes self-determined. The game in this wise could be said to be larger than himself. The game becomes even larger than this when the general seeks to play the parts of all the political heads, which should be above him. This is the main reason why dictatorship doesn’t work. It is all but impossible for one man to be pan-determined about the entire system of games, which comprise a nation. He starts taking sides and then to that degree becomes much less than the government, which he is seeking to run

Page 18: One is self-determined, then, in any situation in which he is fighting. He is pan-determined in any situation, which he is controlling. To become pan-determined rather than only self-determined, it is necessary to view both sides. A problem is an intention-counter-intention. It is then something that has two opposing sides. By creating problems one tends to view both sides in opposition and so becomes Pan-Determined.

Scientology is a workable system. It white-tapes the road out of the labyrinth. If there were no white tapes marking the right tunnels, man would just go on wandering around and around the way he has for eons, darting off on wrong roads, going in circles, ending up in the sticky dark, alone. Scientology, exactly and correctly followed, takes the person up and out of the mess. Scientology is a new thing—it is a road out. There has not been one. Not all the salesmanship in the world can make a bad route a proper route. And an awful lot of bad routes are being sold. Their end product is further slavery, more darkness, more misery. Scientology is the only workable system man has. It has already taken people toward higher IQ, better lives and all that. No other system has. So realize that it has no competitor. Scientology is a workable system. It has the route taped. The search is done. Now the route only needs to be walked. So put the feet of students and pre-clears on that route. Don't let them off of it no matter how fascinating the side roads seem to them. And move them on up and out. Don't let your party down. By whatever means, keep them on the route. And they'll be free. If you don't, they won't. — L. Ron Hubbard HCOPL 14 February 1965 KSW 4 Safeguarding Technology

Soderqvist1: it is a religious leader urging his ministers to guide the communion on the path to salvation!

Soderqvist1: Do I agree with every idea Hubbard has hit upon?
No, his third party law seems unsound to me, I have even posted my whys here!
http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=28645

Soderqvist1: it also seems to me that the communion has deviated from the path!
Read my evidence here and tell me if it is sound!
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p=229477#post229477
 
Soderqvist1: I mean what I said!
It is possible to see something from other points of view, not just that one you prefer!

I think I'll stick with reality... but thanks for asking

Hubbard was a con man and a compulsive liar who's intention was clear, his only intent was to build a totalitarian cult to serve his personal desires.
 
This Saturday I was sitting in my scriptwriting class in college and I got sick to my stomach, :puke2:

because the teacher showed this video earlier and had us read a book about scriptwriting and creating characters, he talked about the basic story structure of a script and how characters are communicated with. It's a lot about the creative process and Art as a form of communication. I have heard so many things my new class and in the last weeks lecture that I'd read earlier from Hubbard's Cine Eds and Art Series. I was kind of shocked. I got really mad...:grouch:

HubToad stole this shit too!!!! And he didn't give anyone else any credit. And he didn't even teach it nearly as well. My teacher has so many great examples and anecdotes to explain the ideas, Hubtoad leaves that part out.

I spent 10 years in the Cine Division in Gold and before that as a Cine Messenger, for about 3 years, so..... I didn't get involved in the great "tech"of counseling besides being a PC and maybe a little basic delivery of assists and a few Objectives on someone else, my whole idea or "faith", or belief in Hubtoad was because he seemed like such a genius regarding the art shit. I mean I figured he'd worked all this cool stuff out, and I am finding out now that it's COMMON knowledge, it's taught in film schools all over the world and has been since the 70's.

Stuff like how to tell how good a work of art is by how much of an emotional impact it makes on an audience.... :omg:

What the heck :angry:. Hubtoad didn't figure out that philosphy of art. He read it or heard it from someone else.

Oh... and did you know that the phrase, "what is true for you is true for you" is also a YOGA term? This is part of Yoga, EVERYONE thinks this way, they don't have a choice. It's called POINT OF VIEW. Everyone has a point of view and they think what they think is TRUE, until they modify it with new information. I mean saying "what is true for you is true for you" is like saying " The sky is blue" It's just a statement of fact, it isn't some magicaly LRH religious idea. Syd Field talks about it in his book about Screenwriting, when he's explaining about characters and their points of view.

There are some really great authors who have written about how to create stories and characters, Joseph Cambell is one of them, he's got some amazing things to say. I've heard that name before, did Hubtoad know him? Because he definately stole shit from him too.

I don't know why this makes me so mad. I guess, it was just part of what made me just go completely nuts in the Sea Org was this delusion I had that LRH was this great man with all this great knowledge and when I was getting kicked out, RPFd and declared and everything, it was just like the end of the world for a while :bigcry: but I just keep finding out that my state of mind then was just a delusion that was created by Hubtoad not acknowledging or footnoting any other sources of his information, making himself "source" of everything, including how to make films and art, and I was made dependent on him in the SO by denying me access through a proper education to the worlds scholars and writers and stuff, people who figured shit out way before Hubtoad did and wrote it down.

Why did Hubtoad do that :grouch: He was a mean old man! Meany!

I found another newspaper article a couple years ago in my History of Cinema class, I think it was a New Times writer or Washington Post writer, around 1984. It was almost word for word the same as Hubbard's later issue called "Cine is PIX." He stole that too, because he probably read the paper and I wasn't allowed to, so of course, I thought Hubbard had this great moment of mental accuity brought about in part by my having made sure his laundry didn't smell like laundry soap.... In 1984, at Gold, Everyone in Cine had to M9 this Hubtoad advice as soon as it came out, which is what we all did when Hubtoad was still alive, we had to M9 his advices that were to us or info copied to us or about our department. I remember thinking how smart this Hubtoad advice was, it later got made blue on white, an LRH ED CINE, NOT TO LEAVE THE BASE. They've got books and books of Hubtoad's writings NOT TO LEAVE THE BASE. I wonder how much of that is all just bullshit plagiarism of other people's writings that Hubbard repeated and put his damn name on it, so that we would worship him as the source of all the good knowledge in the world.

Oh my god :omg: this so pisses me off. How am I going to get through this class now, I'm going to be sitting in my chair thinking "Fuck Fucking HUBTOAD", I could have gone to community college, and paid practically nothing to learn this great art stuff, when instead, I had to learn it from HUBTOAD and pay for it with years of my life, as it if was unique and precious like gold, that I'd got to read Hubtoads great confidential Cine EDs.... like I was somehow blessed.....

Good thing that Hubtoad doesn't have a grave plot, I'd probably have gone and puked on it myself on Saturday evening.

What more am I going to find out that Hubtoad stole? I guess I shouldn't be shocked, it shouldn't bother me anymore, it just that this time, it kind of was more about my life in the Sea Org and the clique of Scientology fanatics that I grew up with, the whole idea that Hubtoad was some kind of master artist when he just wasn't, and I was forced to study his blather instead of getting a real education in art like I'd wanted. :grouch:
This guy ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell? yeah a lot of sci-fi writers of the time were inspired by Campbell, a lot of those writers worked for this Campbell (no immediate relation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Campbell as did Hubtoad so he could've heard (stole) those concepts from anyone there.
 

DagwoodGum

Squirreling Dervish
This Saturday I was sitting in my scriptwriting class in college and I got sick to my stomach, :puke2:

because the teacher showed this video earlier and had us read a book about scriptwriting and creating characters, he talked about the basic story structure of a script and how characters are communicated with. It's a lot about the creative process and Art as a form of communication. I have heard so many things my new class and in the last weeks lecture that I'd read earlier from Hubbard's Cine Eds and Art Series. I was kind of shocked. I got really mad...:grouch:

HubToad stole this shit too!!!! And he didn't give anyone else any credit. And he didn't even teach it nearly as well. My teacher has so many great examples and anecdotes to explain the ideas, Hubtoad leaves that part out.

I spent 10 years in the Cine Division in Gold and before that as a Cine Messenger, for about 3 years, so..... I didn't get involved in the great "tech"of counseling besides being a PC and maybe a little basic delivery of assists and a few Objectives on someone else, my whole idea or "faith", or belief in Hubtoad was because he seemed like such a genius regarding the art shit. I mean I figured he'd worked all this cool stuff out, and I am finding out now that it's COMMON knowledge, it's taught in film schools all over the world and has been since the 70's.

Stuff like how to tell how good a work of art is by how much of an emotional impact it makes on an audience.... :omg:

What the heck :angry:. Hubtoad didn't figure out that philosphy of art. He read it or heard it from someone else.

Oh... and did you know that the phrase, "what is true for you is true for you" is also a YOGA term? This is part of Yoga, EVERYONE thinks this way, they don't have a choice. It's called POINT OF VIEW. Everyone has a point of view and they think what they think is TRUE, until they modify it with new information. I mean saying "what is true for you is true for you" is like saying " The sky is blue" It's just a statement of fact, it isn't some magicaly LRH religious idea. Syd Field talks about it in his book about Screenwriting, when he's explaining about characters and their points of view.

There are some really great authors who have written about how to create stories and characters, Joseph Cambell is one of them, he's got some amazing things to say. I've heard that name before, did Hubtoad know him? Because he definately stole shit from him too.

I don't know why this makes me so mad. I guess, it was just part of what made me just go completely nuts in the Sea Org was this delusion I had that LRH was this great man with all this great knowledge and when I was getting kicked out, RPFd and declared and everything, it was just like the end of the world for a while :bigcry: but I just keep finding out that my state of mind then was just a delusion that was created by Hubtoad not acknowledging or footnoting any other sources of his information, making himself "source" of everything, including how to make films and art, and I was made dependent on him in the SO by denying me access through a proper education to the worlds scholars and writers and stuff, people who figured shit out way before Hubtoad did and wrote it down.

Why did Hubtoad do that :grouch: He was a mean old man! Meany!

I found another newspaper article a couple years ago in my History of Cinema class, I think it was a New Times writer or Washington Post writer, around 1984. It was almost word for word the same as Hubbard's later issue called "Cine is PIX." He stole that too, because he probably read the paper and I wasn't allowed to, so of course, I thought Hubbard had this great moment of mental accuity brought about in part by my having made sure his laundry didn't smell like laundry soap.... In 1984, at Gold, Everyone in Cine had to M9 this Hubtoad advice as soon as it came out, which is what we all did when Hubtoad was still alive, we had to M9 his advices that were to us or info copied to us or about our department. I remember thinking how smart this Hubtoad advice was, it later got made blue on white, an LRH ED CINE, NOT TO LEAVE THE BASE. They've got books and books of Hubtoad's writings NOT TO LEAVE THE BASE. I wonder how much of that is all just bullshit plagiarism of other people's writings that Hubbard repeated and put his damn name on it, so that we would worship him as the source of all the good knowledge in the world.

Oh my god :omg: this so pisses me off. How am I going to get through this class now, I'm going to be sitting in my chair thinking "Fuck Fucking HUBTOAD", I could have gone to community college, and paid practically nothing to learn this great art stuff, when instead, I had to learn it from HUBTOAD and pay for it with years of my life, as it if was unique and precious like gold, that I'd got to read Hubtoads great confidential Cine EDs.... like I was somehow blessed.....

Good thing that Hubtoad doesn't have a grave plot, I'd probably have gone and puked on it myself on Saturday evening.

What more am I going to find out that Hubtoad stole? I guess I shouldn't be shocked, it shouldn't bother me anymore, it just that this time, it kind of was more about my life in the Sea Org and the clique of Scientology fanatics that I grew up with, the whole idea that Hubtoad was some kind of master artist when he just wasn't, and I was forced to study his blather instead of getting a real education in art like I'd wanted. :grouch:
Here's a thread that shows a lot of who came up with what (Alan Walter and Gordon Bell) and the facts that Hubbard then stole it just like he did with the study 'tech". https://www.forum.exscn.net/threads/opening-pandoras-box-part-one.33/#post-68
 
Top