Tech for everything?

kate8024

-deleted-
As a newcomer to Scientology one thing that strikes me as odd is how there seems to be an official Tech for everything - I totally understand the Tech related to processing and the like but why would things like public speaking tech or diplomatic tech be part of church doctrine? I'd like to hear others thoughts on this. Is it just to try to be in control of every aspect of an organization or was it just that Ron started going crazy if he wasn't writing so he had to constantly be writing about _something_?
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
..

Its about trying to be in control of every aspect of the individual Scientologist. It starts out with telling people how the subject will teach them "knowingness" and then proceeds to tell them everything they need to know . . . right down to how to properly clean windows. It fosters the gradient shift into dependency on "Source" and is common with many cults.
 

LA SCN

NOT drinking the kool-aid
As a newcomer to Scientology one thing that strikes me as odd is how there seems to be an official Tech for everything - I totally understand the Tech related to processing and the like but why would things like public speaking tech or diplomatic tech be part of church doctrine? I'd like to hear others thoughts on this. Is it just to try to be in control of every aspect of an organization or was it just that Ron started going crazy if he wasn't writing so he had to constantly be writing about _something_?

You hit on it - CONTROL is the key word here. Through the organization hubbard wanted to control the activities of all true believers and wanted to make every being on earth a true believer. He was a legend in his own mind. And he wanted admiration from them all thus his reinvention of all tech on anything.
 

xstaffWPB

Patron
Dang, Kate. It took me years to realize that about the cult! I wish I could have spotted that as a "newcomer" myself. It would have saved me a lot of grief (and money!) if I was that smart, that quick. Welcome to ESMB by the way.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
Well I know when I went to Sunday school as a kid they never taught us like the church official way of sweeping the sidewalk or anything - they taught us about the gross looking dead dude hanging on the wall.

As someone who has spent most of her adult life learning (and practicing) effective management technique it seems to me that most of the church Tech regarding this is just 1950's standard business organization which almost no one uses anymore as it tends to create business which fail because of secrets, distrust, power-struggles, struggles for resources, short-sighted-ness, etc. just like seems to be happening in the church all the time - where most modern techniques are about departments learning to all work together for the good of the organization rather than the sharp divisionalization which is all over the place in Ron's Tech. (I actually once wrote a really awesome paper on the dangers of divisionalization and man I wish I knew of the CofS then because they would have been a perfect case of why and when its bad)

Though I have not thoroughly studied Ron's management/organization tech, these are just my first impressions - does anyone who has studied it more in depth come to a different conclusion?
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
As a newcomer to Scientology one thing that strikes me as odd is how there seems to be an official Tech for everything - I totally understand the Tech related to processing and the like but why would things like public speaking tech or diplomatic tech be part of church doctrine? I'd like to hear others thoughts on this. Is it just to try to be in control of every aspect of an organization or was it just that Ron started going crazy if he wasn't writing so he had to constantly be writing about _something_?

If you want to take over the world you have to do it right. Hubbard was big on "doing it right the first time." I don't mean he always did it right, but his PR line was that he did and expected his staff to also.

By importing "how to do it" into his works he (1) made it appear that he originated it all and was so brilliant and indispensible, (2) provided the how-to information in assimilable form to his minions. This was before the internet, remember.

Paul
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
If your Sunday school taught you a stupid way to rake leaves, and insisted it was divine revelation, wouldn't that tend to make you more doubtful about whatever they said about that dead guy, too?

Hubbard's silly decrees about how to do practically everything certainly make me more suspicious of his supposedly spiritual 'tech'. I admit it could in principle be possible that he was brilliant in one area, clueless in others, and clueless enough over all not to realize where he was clueless. But since the one thing he is supposed to really be brilliant in is precisely about fundamental mental ability and stuff, that whole scenario just seems implausible to me.

A guy who is manifestly clueless about many things claims to be a genius about 'knowing how to know.' Isn't that like a bald guy selling hair tonic?
 

kate8024

-deleted-
If your Sunday school taught you a stupid way to rake leaves, and insisted it was divine revelation, wouldn't that tend to make you more doubtful about whatever they said about that dead guy, too?

The fact that they didn't did not make me doubt whatever they said about the dead guy any less though. Each thing should be taken on its own merit and should be approached with skepticism from the outset I think.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
If your Sunday school taught you a stupid way to rake leaves, and insisted it was divine revelation, wouldn't that tend to make you more doubtful about whatever they said about that dead guy, too?

Hubbard's silly decrees about how to do practically everything certainly make me more suspicious of his supposedly spiritual 'tech'. I admit it could in principle be possible that he was brilliant in one area, clueless in others, and clueless enough over all not to realize where he was clueless. But since the one thing he is supposed to really be brilliant in is precisely about fundamental mental ability and stuff, that whole scenario just seems implausible to me.

A guy who is manifestly clueless about many things claims to be a genius about 'knowing how to know.' Isn't that like a bald guy selling hair tonic?

I would say that he probably knew a little about most of the things he wrote about, kind of a he knew just enough to be dangerous kind of thing - or just enough to BS the stuff he didn't know to make it sound plausible. The big fallacy that I see is that he wrote as if his word was absolute and final.
 
As a newcomer to Scientology one thing that strikes me as odd is how there seems to be an official Tech for everything - I totally understand the Tech related to processing and the like but why would things like public speaking tech or diplomatic tech be part of church doctrine? I'd like to hear others thoughts on this. Is it just to try to be in control of every aspect of an organization or was it just that Ron started going crazy if he wasn't writing so he had to constantly be writing about _something_?

A bit of both along with some aspects of his behavior. He had a perpetual need to be 'right', a sure indicator of actively dramatizing 'serfacs'. Many of the reports of him totally losing it with others deal with events where he was being corrected or otherwise seen to have erred. He also had to be 'in control'. He was not open to advice or direction from others. He treated church revenues as private income and took a proprietorial interest in increasing those revenues. As you astutely point out, he was also highly communicative and well known for the sheer volume of his writing, if not the quality.


Mark A. Baker
 

kate8024

-deleted-
A bit of both along with some aspects of his behavior. He had a perpetual need to be 'right', a sure indicator of actively dramatizing 'serfacs'. Many of the reports of him totally losing it with others deal with events where he was being corrected or otherwise seen to have erred. He also had to be 'in control'. He was not open to advice or direction from others. He treated church revenues as private income and took a proprietorial interest in increasing those revenues. As you astutely point out, he was also highly communicative and well known for the sheer volume of his writing, if not the quality.


Mark A. Baker

Makes sense - I've worked for bosses who always take the stuff their employees do which is good and turn around and say they did it (which Hubbard seems to have done a lot). These are the same bosses who you could never correct (which seems to be the same). So I can probably interpolate some other aspects of his personality, if not simply his management style from that information.
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
The big fallacy that I see is that he wrote as if his word was absolute and final.

Right. But that's a really big fallacy. So big that it removes my respect for Hubbard's thinking about any subject. Lots of people know a little bit about lots of things. Most of them appreciate that their broad knowledge is limited. The ones who don't are called idiots, in my book.
 

La La Lou Lou

Crusader
His writings were stuck on an old model. Wartime military to be precise. But also the FO's on how to clean glass, metal, shirts etc etc if written by Ron can never be changed no matter how much better products are. It is possible that window cleaning cream then was good for cleaning metal, but now we have long lasting brass cleaner, no can't use that, it's out teckk!

A world where everyone writes KR's on everyone else, that's based on the KGB or Gestapo. Certainly didn't build a great society in either empires.

He was just the ultimate control freak.

Cults that have to follow everything to the letter end up looking really daft and out of place end up looking like the Salvation Army or Jehova's Witnesses, they look like they fell out of a time warp from Pleasantville.
 

Reasonable

Silver Meritorious Patron
As a newcomer to Scientology one thing that strikes me as odd is how there seems to be an official Tech for everything - I totally understand the Tech related to processing and the like but why would things like public speaking tech or diplomatic tech be part of church doctrine? I'd like to hear others thoughts on this. Is it just to try to be in control of every aspect of an organization or was it just that Ron started going crazy if he wasn't writing so he had to constantly be writing about _something_?

There are many ways to apply tech. For instance if you apply Normal "find what improved the statistic and do more of that, find what decreased the statistic and do less of that" That is just good common sense. But since this is part of the tech Ron can lay claim to any improvement in any area or company.

Also there are some other good ideas that if you apply on your own are good guideposts and can help. Many of these are in the basic books. Again some seem "new" some are common sense. It is nice for me that there are many of them in these books.

I think the biggest "Tech" problem is that people were not applying these ideas on their own. There is always a senior who applies the tech on the junior and the junior applies it like a robot.

No one thinks any more. Scientologists have trained the thinking right out of themselves and apply tech literally. Even though the idea is to understaand conceptually.

The main reason that Ron likes robots is that a robot can be replaced by another robot. The idea that any auditor can be replaced is good for them. You as an employee are literally worthless. That can make more just like you.

They have the insane idea that an audtor of 30 years experience is the same as someone who has just graduated from the class 5 course yeaterday.

The idea that all auditing is standard is only good for them so they can control the whole scene. That is how they suck in young people who have not lived long enough to understand how important experience is.

Coorporations try to do the same thing, make the employee expendable.. yet isn't that what Scientology is? A corporation? One that has a certain product and exagerates its usefullness and its uniqueness, tell you that all they want to do is help but really wants to make money and if people get help then that is nice too.

I guess I got off the point, my that is my 2 cents.

Now if you want to go into the human rights issue that is another story!
 

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
Makes sense - I've worked for bosses who always take the stuff their employees do which is good and turn around and say they did it (which Hubbard seems to have done a lot). These are the same bosses who you could never correct (which seems to be the same). So I can probably interpolate some other aspects of his personality, if not simply his management style from that information.

Did you mean extrapolate?

Wow Hubbard would have slapped me across the noggin if I asked him that question.

Rd00
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
As a newcomer to Scientology one thing that strikes me as odd is how there seems to be an official Tech for everything - I totally understand the Tech related to processing and the like but why would things like public speaking tech or diplomatic tech be part of church doctrine? I'd like to hear others thoughts on this. Is it just to try to be in control of every aspect of an organization or was it just that Ron started going crazy if he wasn't writing so he had to constantly be writing about _something_?

I like both those guesses!

Scn's extremely invasive.
 

GreyLensman

Silver Meritorious Patron
Well I know when I went to Sunday school as a kid they never taught us like the church official way of sweeping the sidewalk or anything - they taught us about the gross looking dead dude hanging on the wall.

As someone who has spent most of her adult life learning (and practicing) effective management technique it seems to me that most of the church Tech regarding this is just 1950's standard business organization which almost no one uses anymore as it tends to create business which fail because of secrets, distrust, power-struggles, struggles for resources, short-sighted-ness, etc. just like seems to be happening in the church all the time - where most modern techniques are about departments learning to all work together for the good of the organization rather than the sharp divisionalization which is all over the place in Ron's Tech. (I actually once wrote a really awesome paper on the dangers of divisionalization and man I wish I knew of the CofS then because they would have been a perfect case of why and when its bad)

Though I have not thoroughly studied Ron's management/organization tech, these are just my first impressions - does anyone who has studied it more in depth come to a different conclusion?

Re: Ron's Management/Organizational tech - don't bother. It isn't workable. You can see from actual application in orgs that it creates an intensely short-sighted Thursday-at-2 to Thursday-at-2 mentality, that plus the screaming pressure from seniors and senior organizations on your seniors makes for a true hell on earth that can't really be believed unless you have experienced it.

I think you hit it exactly right - 1950's ideas, but not even as good as earth management tech from the 1950's.
 

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
Seriously?

Well I guess yeah as I did hear people say to me years ago when I was hooked up that there was a tech for everything.

Amazing

That means there is a tech on breaking wind.

Now that would be some serious red on white.

Rd00
 
Top