The failure of Study Tech and its apologists.

... Especially when I look at the total uselessness of what is produced by "studying" scienoweenie words. Imagine what we all could have accomplished by going into useful endeavors.

Well, if it's any consolation, time spent studying scientology in the church has helped you to become better qualified to contribute to this board. That counts for something.


Mark A. Baker :coolwink:
 
Last edited:

Lavalyte

Patron with Honors
...


The Study Tech is missing many things. For example it only has 3 barriers To Study

1. Misunderstood Words.

2. Skipped Gradients.

3. Absent Mass

.

The premise is flawed already. "Misunderstood words", or words whose meaning is not completely known are not necessarily a stopper to understanding. Meaning can often be derived from context. That's how most words are learnt, after all.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
The premise is flawed already. "Misunderstood words", or words whose meaning is not completely known are not necessarily a stopper to understanding. Meaning can often be derived from context. That's how most words are learnt, after all.

Yup. "Swig" means to drink from a bottle, right? I learned that from context in my teens. I didn't need no steenkin' dictionary! I discovered two weeks ago while doing a crossword puzzle that it doesn't mean that.

Paul
 

Etrawl

Patron
The Tech had failed because it does not exist -- it is a disjoint collection of unrelated articles (HCOBs) that often contradict one another.

I am not a Scientologist, but I read some of the Tech shit and was surprised that some people take it seriously. Hubbard was no scientist, he made no contribution to psychology and science in general.
 

Hazmat

Patron with Honors
I can't believe what I'm reading here. Study tech isn't the problem. The problem is the people "applying" it.

Granted, a $cientology "trained" person, is probably about the last person you would want instructions from, as far as how to learn a subject.

I mean, during word clearing I would be asked what does this or that word mean, and give an answer. Which I would "flunk", simply because I did not give the definition of the context used in whatever text.

Well, I naturally complained that I simply did not recall the word being used at all in the text and, however upon being reminded, understood from context alone, etc..

Now, with some word clearers, this was perfectly ok. With others, it was not. And then again, it had to do with the star ratedness of the material.

I also hated the idea I had to know each definition of the word "the", "and", and such.

I mean, I was 19 years old, and as far as I was concerned, as long as I had a general idea of things, that was sufficient.

Yeah, I wanted to be audited and learn how to audit.

But, these idiots were trying to make me some kind of super expert, in one session or something.

I realized in the end, they were in actual fact, 1.1 on the tone scale!

1.1s,FORCE REALITY!

Why? Well, their reality is all they know and it had better be right, or they're dead. They have nowhere else to go.

Thus, they tell you they are trying to free you and improve you, when the truth is all they want is validation.............LOL.

But, even at 19, I eventually came to see this.

But, it WAS because of the tech, I was able to do this.

Now, I know there are going to be some who say "No, it was in spite of the tech, etc..".

I would say, no. I learned a great deal from the tech. Things I would probably never have learned elsewhere.

The difference is, I did not allow reality to be forced upon me and certainly did not accept things which were not real, or possible.

In other words, I took the idea that "You are responsible for your own condition", very seriously.

LOL :thumbsup:
 

Lavalyte

Patron with Honors
Yup. "Swig" means to drink from a bottle, right? I learned that from context in my teens. I didn't need no steenkin' dictionary! I discovered two weeks ago while doing a crossword puzzle that it doesn't mean that.

Paul

Except for then, you know, it does mean that.
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
The other failure was I couldn't get it to work outside of Scn. study materials.

I know I was good at study tech. Got 100% on final exam then about a year latter redid the last test and got a 90% or so and had to restudy a few issues.

I was even a basic course sup. But I couldn't use this great tech to learn anything I wanted, except for Scn. courses that is.

I also find it interesting that the world has gotten on very well in the last 6,000 years without study tech, I don't think we need it now.

The demo kit conditions the user to assign meaning to bits of rubbish.
This would assist in the study of $cientology.
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
I just came across a comment over at Tony O's blog and wanted to cross-post it over to ESMB. Not sure if this thread is the right home for it or not so apologize in advance if not:

Natalia M 5 hours ago
"...I just want to offer my two cents about Scientology word clearing. The concept of making learners stop and look up every misunderstood word (or worse yet, convincing them they have misunderstood a word or concept when they have not) has made my teacher heart cringe from the moment I first heard of it (from Tory Magoo videos) to reading Eugene K’s praise of it yesterday.

I taught high school English Language Development (the fancy new name for ESL), eleventh grade composition, ninth grade reading, and journalism for seven years. I had over a year of experience as a student teacher and was very dedicated throughout my undergrad and credential coursework. Because I loved the subjects, I was especially diligent about my linguistics and psychology of education training.

Having a student “clear” or rigidly define each “misunderstood” term as they are reading even a very short passage is so bizarre and ineffective a teaching strategy that prior to entering the rabbit hole of Scientology watching I had never heard it suggested. Nor have I ever seen any qualified teacher attempt to teach students in such a way. Two particular reasons jump to mind immediately. First, it would be a ridiculously ineffective and inefficient way from which to build a vocabulary or knowledge base. Most vocabulary is learned through Latent Semantic Analysis/Indexing, which means that it is picked up through contextual clues (about the word’s meaning) rather than direct instruction on meaning. Learning the meaning of a word or concept through repeated usage in context is often considered a superior way to learn things because it is more relevant and engaging. Learning in this more natural way causes knowledge to “stick” and be more deeply absorbed. The second and more critical issue that concerns me about “clearing MUs” is how such an activity would emotionally affect and impede a learner. Linguist Stephen Krashen has a hypothesis in his language acquisition model called The Affective Filter Hypothesis which states that emotions like embarrassment, anxiety, and self-doubt can interfere with a student’s ability to process and learn new information. One of the primary factors that triggers these emotions is correcting a student too early in the learning process -- like telling them to look up every-other-fricking-word! Not to mention the fear that just having “an MU” would create in a Scientologist.

Anyway, sorry for the long post, but I had to explain my point of view on this academic treachery. It has been bothering me for at least a year now. Man, I would love to deconstruct Scientology Study Tech piece by piece to see what other “stuff” is in there.

http://tonyortega.org/2013/10/25/sc...uit-based-on-jurisdiction/#comment-1096191296


 

DagwoodGum

Squirreling Dervish
I think that by the observable fact that study tech did not work as advertised in the format chosen by Ron, once he plagiarized the underlying concepts leads to a conclusion. Students and readers of his books, remember trying to read Dianetics, were sent on all these wild goose chases that they were kept in a continuous state of confusion - by design. Were we intentionally put and kept in "aeneten" to render us increasingly hypnotize-able so that he could psychologically implant us with all of his own personal case items so that he could sell us the way out down the line by use of some demented Nazi tech.?. I say yes, the more confused we were the greater own hunger for Scientology.
All of the conflicting orders and technical information he gave us kept us in the ultimate internal clusterfuck, with no way out "but the way through" Just one more facet to the trap
 

looker

Patron Meritorious
I think that by the observable fact that study tech did not work as advertised in the format chosen by Ron, once he plagiarized the underlying concepts leads to a conclusion. Students and readers of his books, remember trying to read Dianetics, were sent on all these wild goose chases that they were kept in a continuous state of confusion - by design. Were we intentionally put and kept in "aeneten" to render us increasingly hypnotize-able so that he could psychologically implant us with all of his own personal case items so that he could sell us the way out down the line by use of some demented Nazi tech.?. I say yes, the more confused we were the greater own hunger for Scientology.
All of the conflicting orders and technical information he gave us kept us in the ultimate internal clusterfuck, with no way out "but the way through" Just one more facet to the trap

"the way out is the way through" Yes!!! This phrase was used often to derail critical thinking or protest.

I remember in one of the tapes hubbard said the best way to study a complex subject like photography was to get 3 or 4 texts on the same subject by different authors, because one author will explain a concept better than another.

Well I thought this was a great idea because I had a college Electronics text that was introducing electron physics in a vague way.

I mentioned I wanted to read "The Scandal of Scientology" by Paulette Cooper In order to argue with publics who may use the book for criticism.

I was advised by a course supervisor that I shouldn't because it may cause confusion and trouble when I received auditing. Also, that Cooper undoubtedly had misunderstoods and was bent on the destruction of Scientology.

I thought well that's silly If I was clearing and comprehending Scientology concepts I could obviously see Cooper's misunderstandings.

The course supervisor said Coopers book could include misunderstood Scientology upper course which would be out gradient as well.

Out Gradient! Another double edged term to invalidate the comprehension of the student and keep the student in line

"Out gradient" and "the way out is the way through" "lack of mass in understanding the concept" "mis understood words" "Out TRs" can all lead to a mis emotional, down tone confused person.

While all of these concepts contain some truth, when misused to control people, will result in a falsely enlightened zombie. :)
 

Winston Smith

Flunked Scientology
The above post made me think of the truth of the matter is the way through is the way out. As in through the front door of the org or mission, never to return.
 

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron
Except for then, you know, it does mean that.

Well, it can mean any large drink, but especially from a bottle. Context sometimes narrows our view of a word, which is why looking a new one up in a dictionary is a good idea, eventually. But context learning from multiple contexts is the best way in the end, because the dictionary can not completely give all the connotations.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
For what its worth, before starting back at university I bought a big box of clay and a big dictionary. The clay is still unopened in the box and the dictionary hasn't been used once and I still got a 4.0 GPA. I do believe that the study tech can potentially help in some situations as long as one isn't dogmatic about it and you realize that it's not some magic bullet. I do see value in looking up words that don't have obvious meaning based on the context; but deriving meaning based on context was a skill specifically learned in at least the elementary school I went to (I guess it's like that for everyone?) so I assume most people are pretty good at that in most cases. I also sometimes purposely skip words I don't know just to see if I get queezy and feel squashed or whatever it is LRH saying you are supposed to feel. Hasn't happened yet. I also have yet to find a situation where I feel making a clay demo would help me understand what I'm reading. I guess that might be useful to some people :shrug: but so far I don't get it.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
I remember in one of the tapes hubbard said the best way to study a complex subject like photography was to get 3 or 4 texts on the same subject by different authors, because one author will explain a concept better than another.

This is the main "study tech" I use (and have always used, really). For every university class I'm in I buy books in addition to the required texts so that I can get a broader perspective on the subject. In some cases just reading the textbook for both my section and a different section that uses a different book has made a huge difference.

This is also why I bought both Dr. Urban and Janet Reitman's books when I bought Dianetics. Plus, of course, I wanted to be super careful not to get sucked into Dianetics without having a counter-balance.
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
I do see value in looking up words that don't have obvious meaning based on the context; but deriving meaning based on context was a skill specifically learned in at least the elementary school I went to (I guess it's like that for everyone?) so I assume most people are pretty good at that in most cases.

Guessing the meaning of a word based on context doesn't work if the word is used in an ironic or sarcastic manner. Back in my grammar school days, we were given dictionaries and expected to use them (years before LRH started spouting about "study tech").

I still look up words, usually online. I just don't go nuts about it.
 

Soul of Ginnungagab

Patron with Honors
The demo kit conditions the user to assign meaning to bits of rubbish.
This would assist in the study of $cientology.

Hmm, I am not sure whether you like the idea of "assigning meaning to bits of rubbish" or not.

Personnally I think it is a matter of being creative. As a child I loved to play with things assigning all kinds of meaning into them, like a bag of leaves collected from the ground could be a bag of money, so it is a fortune. Such creative ability I believe is sound and also fun.
 

DagwoodGum

Squirreling Dervish
"the way out is the way through" Yes!!! This phrase was used often to derail critical thinking or protest.

I remember in one of the tapes hubbard said the best way to study a complex subject like photography was to get 3 or 4 texts on the same subject by different authors, because one author will explain a concept better than another.

Well I thought this was a great idea because I had a college Electronics text that was introducing electron physics in a vague way.

I mentioned I wanted to read "The Scandal of Scientology" by Paulette Cooper In order to argue with publics who may use the book for criticism.

I was advised by a course supervisor that I shouldn't because it may cause confusion and trouble when I received auditing. Also, that Cooper undoubtedly had misunderstoods and was bent on the destruction of Scientology.

I thought well that's silly If I was clearing and comprehending Scientology concepts I could obviously see Cooper's misunderstandings.

The course supervisor said Coopers book could include misunderstood Scientology upper course which would be out gradient as well.

Out Gradient! Another double edged term to invalidate the comprehension of the student and keep the student in line

"Out gradient" and "the way out is the way through" "lack of mass in understanding the concept" "mis understood words" "Out TRs" can all lead to a mis emotional, down tone confused person.

While all of these concepts contain some truth, when misused to control people, will result in a falsely enlightened zombie. :)

"falsely enlightened zombie", that about sums it up. And words often have regional differences in meaning especially Spanish as a classic example where meaning frequently depends on which country your in.
 
Top