The failure of Study Tech and its apologists.

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

One of the debilitating effects of Study Tech is that it often decreases one’s capacity to use language in a fluid way.

This is because Study Tech puts such emphasis on the dictionary as the authoritarian reference for the use and meaning of words.

Study Tech assigns each word a territory and a boundary. Thus users of Study Tech often miss the purpose of language.

They can’t see the forest (language) because of the trees (words). This happens IN Scientology.

Users of Study Tech develop the tendency to emphasize the fixed meaning of words rather than the understanding of ideas.

In other words, they become literal in their use of words, which limits their capacity to understand.

Study Tech negates the use and existence of such figures of rhetoric as metonymy and synecdoche.

A metonymy is a figure of rhetoric in which the name of one object is put for some other object, the two being so closely related that the mention of one naturally suggests the other.

Examples of this are: “I read Shakespeare”; “Man shall live by the sweat of his brow”; “France would not consent.”; “Bayonets speak“; “This happens in Scientology”; “What does the Freezone believe?”

Scientologists whose fluidity of language is reduced by the use of Study Tech often dismiss a metonymy as “a generality.”

They have lost their taste and imagination in the use of language, relying only on the meaning of words instead.

This happens also with the use a synecdoche.

A synecdoche is a figure of rhetoric in which the name of a part is used to represent the whole, or the name of the whole is used to represent a part, or a definite number used to represent an indefinite.

Examples: “All hands were working”; “Ten thousand exes rejoiced.”; “The world condemns him.” Scientologists and exes often dismiss this expression of an idea too as simply “a generality.”

Both figures of speech are founded on the contiguity of two objects of thought.

This won’t be understood if the person emphasizes words and not language.

Study Tech adherents also have difficulty understanding or comprehending litotes.

Litotes are the reverse of hyperbole.

It consists in giving emphasis to an idea by using terms that convey less than the truth.

For example “Show thyself a man.” This means that the person speaking to is urged to put forth the noblest qualities of manhood.

Also, some litotes are denials of the contrary instead of a direct of a direct statement.

For example: “I do not think him a great man.” By emphasizing words and not language this will get missed in Study Tech.

Scientologists and exes who adhere to Study Tech often do not make these connections, as they emphasize words and not thoughts.

The adherents to study tech miss the ideas because they do not understand the use of language.

Now there are some who say they mixed Study Tech with other common sense tools.

But this is a flaw in their precsion of language.

Because if Study Tech is not applied exactly it is not Study Tech.

Study Tech is not just looking up words; it is a unified association of actions designed to compel a particular interpretation of a written statement.

But by ignoring language it misses its target.

When people say they use common sense this implies they could not have attained understanding through the use of Study Tech, thus Study Tech has failed.

The following is from the standard high school textbook used in high schools in the United States in the 1890s.

I will add comments in brackets to show how this differs from Study Tech.

From: Elements of Composition and Rhetoric by Virginia Waddy

1. Always note a new word, with a view to ascertaining its precise meaning and use. [Note how “precise meaning and use” differs from “full conceptual understanding.” The result is that one is a precise understanding and the Study Tech leaves the student with imprecise word associations.]

2. Make constant use of a dictionary. It is the practice of many great scholars never to allow a word to pass without an examination, if there is the least doubt about its origin, pronunciation, meaning, or spelling. [Some may say that this is the same as L. Ron Hubbard’s Study Tech. But the difference lies in the step one. One seeks out precision and the other seeks out association.]

3. Study Etymology It is useful to trace out the origin, composition, and primary meaning of words…

4. Seek good society. There is a great advantage to be derived from a frequent association with intelligent and cultivated persons. One who has that advantage will acquire a good vocabulary without great effort.

5. Read the best books carefully. Observe the selection and combination of words as illustrated by the best authors, if you would be profited by formal rhetorical rules. You must not, however, imitate your author in a slavish spirit.

6. The words of any composition should be pure, appropriate, precise, and simple.
[End of Waddy's book]

Failure to see the distinction and the result of these distinctions would be one of the consequences of using Study Tech.

When people tell me that Study Tech works if you are not slavish to it means that they themselves do not use Study Tech as a system.

They see flaws and they make adjustments.

But it is those adjustments that give the results, because it is apparent that Study Tech, per Hubbard, reduces the student’s capacity to understand language.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[themadhair]

InB4 a watered down unrecognisable version of study tech is defended....

 

[degraded being]

.
.
I just wrote this response to a post on another thread............


Yes, that's how education in the "wog world" is these days. Those are some of the objectives.

I just want to say something about "learning in a social environment" too, which completely permeates education in the wog world. I think it comes from Vygotsky's theories and has been around a long time now.
Students and teachers do things interactively and get students to "discover" the meanings in what they study...to a great extent. It is a social co-operative way of learning.

In the scientology cult it is the opposite. It is a very cultish method of isolating the student. Of course there are other people present, but they do not "discover" the meaning or "construct" the meaning by discussion and interaction together. The supervisor has minimal contact. The students only "twin" to mechanically ensure that hubbard's ideas are installed. I used to think individual checksheets were a good idea, and perhaps they are for certain things, but not for many learning situations. More for learning routine (probably physical) tasks such as "How to clean the tractor"

From theories on social-interactive-co-operative learning, the very cultish, indoctrinative nature of study tech can be seen, by contrast.

 

[R6Basic]

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.

 

[programmer_guy]

The SCN study tech is flawed.
However this doesn't mean that the use of dictionaries should not be practiced.

Also, in software engineering, we have to define the words that decribe what we are doing, and requirements, ALL of the time.

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

I'm personally grateful for Ron gracing us with Study Tech.

Now we finally have a use for all of the millions of dictionaries that were just laying around going unused prior to Ron's great invention.

Until Ron, no one ever thought of using a dictionary to look up the definition of an unfamiliar word.

If it wasn't for Scientology, We'd still have no idea why Merriam-Webster's printing presses kept pumping out more dictionaries, and why people kept buying them.

Thanks Ron, for finally giving us a use for all those books.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

...


The idea that Scientologists know the "tech" of how to study or even are able to "clear" words is very easily disprovable.

A Scientologist CANNOT clear many words. It is impossible for them to do so without blowing Scientology. If you doubt this, try to get a Scientologist to use their "study tech" to clear the word cult. Or the word clear itself.

There is a natural law regarding this phenomenon:


HUBBARD LAW OF 10: Even if a Scientologist had 10 dictionaries, 10 word clearers and 10 pounds of clay, they could not possibly understand it. Because of the 10 points of KSW.


Have a Scientologist clear the word SP and then ask them if lifelong Sea Org members like Jefferson Hawkins or Mark Headley were SPs because they left the Sea Org and told the truth? Have them "clear" the definitions found in their two (2) respective books which memorialize how they were terrorized, imprisoned and beaten. A Scientologist cannot clear the word SP. They can only parrot what they are told to say an SP is and then parrot who they are told is an SP.

That actually makes Scientologists amongst the worst or "glibbest" students on the face of the earth.

 

[PirateAndBum]

...

The adherents to study tech miss the ideas because they do not understand the use of language.

Now there are some who say they mixed Study Tech with other common sense tools.

But this is a flaw in their precsion of language.

Because if Study Tech is not applied exactly it is not Study Tech.

Study Tech is not just looking up words; it is a unified association of actions designed to compel a particular interpretation of a written statement.

But by ignoring language it misses its target.

When people say they use common sense this implies they could not have attained understanding through the use of Study Tech, thus Study Tech has failed.

The following is from the standard high school textbook used in high schools in the United States in the 1890s.

I will add comments in brackets to show how this differs from Study Tech.

From: Elements of Composition and Rhetoric by Virginia Waddy

1. Always note a new word, with a view to ascertaining its precise meaning and use. [Note how “precise meaning and use” differs from “full conceptual understanding.” The result is that one is a precise understanding and the Study Tech leaves the student with imprecise word associations.]

2. Make constant use of a dictionary. It is the practice of many great scholars never to allow a word to pass without an examination, if there is the least doubt about its origin, pronunciation, meaning, or spelling. [Some may say that this is the same as L. Ron Hubbard’s Study Tech. But the difference lies in the step one. One seeks out precision and the other seeks out association.]

3. Study Etymology It is useful to trace out the origin, composition, and primary meaning of words…

...

Failure to see the distinction and the result of these distinctions would be one of the consequences of using Study Tech.

When people tell me that Study Tech works if you are not slavish to it means that they themselves do not use Study Tech as a system.

They see flaws and they make adjustments.

But it is those adjustments that give the results, because it is apparent that Study Tech, per Hubbard, reduces the student’s capacity to understand language.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Study Tech is not just looking up words; it is a unified association of actions designed to compel a particular interpretation of a written statement.

Sorry, but I don't agree with your premise about study tech. I think you are restricting it into something that it is not. Study tech is NOT a course in language or how to read. But there is more to "study tech" than just the 3 barriers to study.

If you don't know what a word means certainly you are not going to begin to comprehend some higher echelon of linguistic understanding to which you aspire.

I will agree that knowing the meaning of words alone is not enough to grok such examples of rhetorical speech. But study-tech does include understanding grammar and the purpose is to understand what you are reading and therefore would include understanding rhetorical forms if you ran into them - not to force you into some literal word by word interpretation. It tells you to use appropriate reference materials to assist you in your study. Every course room I studied in had far more than dictionaries available. There were grammars, encyclopedias (multiple sets), text books on a variety of subjects, books on slang and idioms, etc.

The problem is that people are not well educated in general. Learning the study tech is certainly not going to do anything about a person's ignorance of rhetorical expression.

I had no clue what those terms you introduced meant, never heard of them, but that does not mean that I could not understand your explanation of them and the examples that you provided I already could understand without knowing what the term is for such. "Show thyself a man" is likely to give a less literate reader a problem. Study tech is not a substitute for a course in rhetoric (or whatever course it would be that you would learn about such language constructs - see I'm an engineering type and went light on English.) But applying study tech to such a statement, one should grok that he isn't groking it just by understanding the words. Any reader unfamiliar with such uses would run afoul in a similar way. This is where one would have to look for help in reference material or seek someone's assistance.

I don't know where you get this "association of words" as far as defining words vs precise understanding (your comments re 1 & 2 in brackets). My understanding of "clearing a word" was that you were to gain a precise understanding of each definition, specifically first finding the precise definition as it applies to what you are reading. What is wrong with gaining a full conceptual understanding of a word? How can one have a full conceptual understanding of a particular meaning without precisely understanding the meaning?

I don't think there is anything wrong with study-tech as far as it goes. There is something wrong with thinking you know everything you need to know about the use of language by reason of knowing study tech. This of course is a problem found everywhere in scientology: failed understanding, bad application, absolutes that aren't, illusions of completeness.

 

[Lavalyte]

The SCN study tech is flawed.
However this doesn't mean that the use of dictionaries should not be practiced.

Also, in software engineering, we have to define the words that decribe what we are doing, and requirements, ALL of the time.

Yes, it's a curator's egg. That which is good is not original, and that which is original is not good.

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

Hubbard's Study Tech works so well that you can't find a single Scientologist who can explain what Scientology is.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

...


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

There are so many more..........

4. L. Ron Hubbard

With the perfect Dr. Hubbard watching over you 24/7....it's not study.

It's indoctrination.

Let's not sully the reputation of the word "study" by associating it with Scientology or Hubbard.

 

[themadhair]

But there is more to "study tech" than just the 3 barriers to study.

That may be so, but all you are doing with this point is side-stepping the legitimate criticism that has been raised regarding those ‘3 barriers’ and how study tech’s implementation of such is retarding to educational learning. I wrote about such implementation is a retarding influence in this post.

If you don't know what a word means certainly you are not going to begin to comprehend some higher echelon of linguistic understanding to which you aspire.

In after a watered down unrecognisable version of study tech is defended.

This reminds me of a surreal conversation I had some years ago with a proponent of a certain meditative technique. This technique will make you smarter and many other grandiose claims were being made, so naturally such claims were challenged. The proponent, in one of those surreal moments I’m not likely to forget, actually tried to claim that because the technique involved breathing, and because breathing is necessary to live, the technique must be valid.

Looking up words in the dictionary when needed is NOT study tech and the irony here is that you know that study tech’s wordclearing is much much more than your simple description of it - and you just lambasted someone for not including ‘more’ of study technology.

But study-tech does include understanding grammar…

Actually it defers this to ‘grammar text books’, and only discusses this within the context of, to quote from the Grammar P/L, “becoming a WORD CLEAR”. The same atomisation criticism applies here just as much.

….and the purpose is to understand what you are reading…

The purpose does not seem understanding given how the methods are not conducive to grasping concepts.

What is wrong with gaining a full conceptual understanding of a word?

Nothing, and it would be nice if study technology actually encouraged with this with reference to the concepts the student is learning about.

The snag here with the focus on wordclearing is that each word takes on a different meaning within any given context. This is why grasping the ideas behind a passage is much more important than atomising it into individual words to be wordcleared. This is why study tech particularly fails with reference to the use of metaphor and the use of rhetoric – and makes your attempt to salvage it with reference to grammar, particularly given how the grammar policy letter commits the same atomisation that causes wordclearing to fail, highly unconvincing.

But applying study tech to such a statement, one should grok that he isn't groking it just by understanding the words.

Seriously, no. Learning a given topic is about learning not just the associated terminology, but also the underlying concepts upon which the topic is based. These concepts often transcend the words used to describe them, if anything language is often a troubled attempt to describe abstract concepts. Understanding the individual words in a sentence does not give a person a grasp of the concept such a sentence was intended to convey. If you consider mathematics, as an example, a given equation is describing so much more conceptually than the small collection of symbols used to write that equation, and simply knowing the definition of each symbol is a far cry from grasping intellectually the actual concepts the equation is trying to represent.

I think Hubbard’s mistake on this can be seen when he writes:
The idea of grasping word meanings conceptually is something new to the field of linguistics. The endless semantic circles pursued by Korzybski and company (see Data Series 1, THE ANATOMY OF THOUGHT) never really led to the realization that a word and its meanings are embodied in the basic concept or idea symbolized by that word.

The conceptualization of meanings is foreign to dictionary writers and “experts” is evidenced by the fact that definitions are so subject to alter-is and change with the passage of time.

And that’s the whole point. From an educational perspective, learning is about forming associations between ideas and concepts. Hubbard’s concepts that words are somehow self-contained concepts is fallacy, making the methods of study tech that are based on this counterproductive to a student learning such associations. Language by its very nature is about associating words with others, not about each individual word being a self-contained rigorously defined block that fits neatly into a sentence. That Hubbard completly misses this point is evidenced by his surprised that language changes over times.

I think this is another crucial difference between study tech and Virginia Waddy’s approach. The book cited by TAJ continues immediately after his quoted portion with these comments thusly:

“3. Study etymology. It is useful to trace out the origin, composition, and primary meaning of words. It should not be forgotten, however, that many words do not now mean what they once did, or what their derivation would seem to imply. The etymology of “prevent" signifies to go before. In this sense it was once actually used; as,
“I prevented the dawning of the morning."
The accepted meaning of the word at the present time is to hinder.“

”4. Seek good society. There is great advantage to be derived from a frequent association with intelligent and cultivated persons. One who has this advantage will ac-quire a good vocabulary without great effort.”

”5. Read the best books carefully. Observe the selection and combination of words as illustrated by the best authors, if you would be profited by formal rhetorical rules. You must not, however, imitate your author in a slavish spirit.”

The difference between the two could not be more stark, with one fostering associative learning and the other harming it.

This, again from Waddy, I’m just referencing for the hilarity more than anything else:
“ Avoid newly-coined words, or such words as have received the sanction of good writers. A word is not, however, to be rejected simply because it is new, for some of the best words in the language have been recently introduced. Learning, invention, discovery, art, fashion, popular commotions, foreign intercourse, the progress of thought, have brought to the English language accessions of beauty and strength in every age from Chaucer to the present. So long as the language has life this process must continue. But the best course for the young writer or speaker, striving after purity of style, is to shun newly- coined words. He may, indeed, have occasion to speak of a new invention or a new idea, for which there is no word but that originating with the invention or idea itself; but in all ordinary cases the safe plan is to select only well-known and fully sanctioned words. ”

This of course is a problem found everywhere in scientology: failed understanding, bad application, absolutes that aren't, illusions of completeness.

I call bull on this given that a) the application of study tech in the manner we describe is widespread and not mere a few isolated instances and b) reflect the very clear text and lectures that comprise study tech.

But even with that said, there are more immediate and demonstrable examples that can be highlighted within what proponents of study tech say. You yourself stated “ But applying study tech to such a statement, one should grok that he isn't groking it just by understanding the words. ”

This reflects what Hubbard himself wrote:
“A student who understands all the words on the page he is reading will be able to read the page aloud perfectly. He will feel bright and alert and will fully understand what he reads.”

And its bollocks for the reasons stated above.

 

[themadhair]

It would be nice to see someone try and defend study tech, and what it actually entails, rather than always defending some watered down version of it.

Exhibit A:

^ The first time I read the student hat I actually couldn't fully take in how asininely retarded some portions (like the above) really were.

 

[DagwoodGum]

What study tech does is distracts you from the essence of your source materials by sending you diving down endless rabbit holes chasing endless chains of words. You are left with the feeling that you learned something by the end of the course but unfortunately you may not have learned the essence of your actual course of study during all this distractive "word clearing".
I did the class 0-IV training in a couple of weeks because there really wasn't that much to learn if you buckled down and didn't get caught up in those distractions. What's hard to comprehend about asking a PC repetitive questions, taking notes and noting reads etc.? Once you separated the wheat from the chaff there just wasn't a lot to be learned there. In fact once you distill it down, there wasn't much to really be learned in all of Scientology.
Study tech took a course that would have taken a couple of days to get through and turned it into a month long endeavor. I don't remember how many times I got checked out on KSW but so many of the course materials were repetitive recyclings from all the previous courses. I always said "never is so much made of so little as in religion". A few morsels of wheat for the price of a satchel of gold. BOGUS, BOGUS, BOGUS!!!!

 

[Bill]

The primary failure of Hubbard's "Study Tech" is that people, especially children, do not end up thinking for themselves. The analysis of Study Tech shows that the "source material" is assumed to be 100% correct, 100% understandable and 100% applicable -- no matter what the student finds.

There is no mechanism for finding the source material to be incorrect or just plain false. This is not a minor flaw, this is absolutely key. However, the flaw was quite intentional.

Therefore, while the Study Tech is a perfect tool for indoctrination and control, it is fatally flawed for teaching people how to evaluate for truth, analyze for logic or think for themselves. The product of Hubbard's Study Tech is obedient slaves. Scientologists do not think, they "think like Ron".

The fact that Study Tech also uses common study aids such as looking up words does not mitigate its fundamental intention as a way to indoctrinate and control.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Sorry, but I don't agree with your premise about study tech. I think you are restricting it into something that it is not. Study tech is NOT a course in language or how to read. But there is more to "study tech" than just the 3 barriers to study.

If you don't know what a word means certainly you are not going to begin to comprehend some higher echelon of linguistic understanding to which you aspire.

I will agree that knowing the meaning of words alone is not enough to grok such examples of rhetorical speech. But study-tech does include understanding grammar and the purpose is to understand what you are reading and therefore would include understanding rhetorical forms if you ran into them - not to force you into some literal word by word interpretation. It tells you to use appropriate reference materials to assist you in your study. Every course room I studied in had far more than dictionaries available. There were grammars, encyclopedias (multiple sets), text books on a variety of subjects, books on slang and idioms, etc.

The problem is that people are not well educated in general. Learning the study tech is certainly not going to do anything about a person's ignorance of rhetorical expression.

I had no clue what those terms you introduced meant, never heard of them, but that does not mean that I could not understand your explanation of them and the examples that you provided I already could understand without knowing what the term is for such. "Show thyself a man" is likely to give a less literate reader a problem. Study tech is not a substitute for a course in rhetoric (or whatever course it would be that you would learn about such language constructs - see I'm an engineering type and went light on English.) But applying study tech to such a statement, one should grok that he isn't groking it just by understanding the words. Any reader unfamiliar with such uses would run afoul in a similar way. This is where one would have to look for help in reference material or seek someone's assistance.

I don't know where you get this "association of words" as far as defining words vs precise understanding (your comments re 1 & 2 in brackets). My understanding of "clearing a word" was that you were to gain a precise understanding of each definition, specifically first finding the precise definition as it applies to what you are reading. What is wrong with gaining a full conceptual understanding of a word? How can one have a full conceptual understanding of a particular meaning without precisely understanding the meaning?

I don't think there is anything wrong with study-tech as far as it goes. There is something wrong with thinking you know everything you need to know about the use of language by reason of knowing study tech. This of course is a problem found everywhere in scientology: failed understanding, bad application, absolutes that aren't, illusions of completeness.

For your information, the term "figures of rhetoric" is the old term for figures of speech.

Metaphors and similies were also once called figures of rhetoric.

I also never learn the ones I mentioned even though L Ron Hubbard uses them (not the words, but the actual figues of rhetoric) in his writings.

So how come both of us, and I suspect many others, never heard and did not know the meaning of something that Hubbard uses abundantly if we used Study Tech?

It is because Study Tech does not allow for the paradigm of language, only the so called "full conceptual understand" of words--which in paractice is word association.

If Hubbard's idea is correct--that one clears a word from the dictionary "to full conceptual understand,"--then why would he need to write a book on communication (Dianetics 55)?

If someone cleared a word to "full conceptual understanding" they wouldn't need an additional book to explain it to them.

There are no words that stand alone as concepts.

Each and every word has a diachronic (through time) and synchronic (at the same time) meaning.

Context is everything. No word exists outside of a context.

No word can be define without the use of other words.

So the idea of a full conceptual understanding is absurd.

Yet it is considered a vital necessity to learning by Hubbard per the Study Tech.

Study Tech is bogus.

Its intent may have been to indoctrinate people into Hubbard's thinking, but it couldn't effectively do that.

This board is evidence of that.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Awake]

I agree that study tech is used as indoctrination into elron's twisted ideas and also as a control mechanism.

What Scn has not felt the fear in their gut when having to M7 a bulletin? My anxiety level was always high when getting a "check out" - even tho I was a good student. A stumble or hesitation always meant added time to look up a word you already knew, restudy the material (you're really screwed if it happened at the beginning of a long bulletin) and then wait around until you can finally get someone to give you another check out.

And it's scary how literally one must "understand" the materials.
How'd that work for ya with the "back and forth and back" description of an f/n?
Everyone - even the supes - in my Solo 1 courseroom knew that was bullshit.

 

[MrNobody]

I think study tech is just another variation of an old and well-known sales-technique: The road to "Yes". It works like this, you talk to your customer about anything he would agree with and expand on that until you can get to the point to where he agrees with your offer.

Now let's apply that to study tech:

Pseudo-Ron says: "At one time I've been to a location and there I did this 'n that."

"At" OK, cleared that.
"one" Quite a few meanings, but yes, I think I got it in this context.
"time" Yup, cleared.
"I" Cleared that one a lot of times, so yes, it should be a no-brainer.
"'ve" Yes, cleared.
"been". Also yes.
"to" Yes.
"a" Yes.
"location" Yupp.
"and" Uhuh.
"there" OK.
"I" Yes, we've had that already.
"did" Yes.
"this" Absolutely cleared.
"'n" Now that was a hard one, but yes, I got it.
"that" Yes - I'm certain that I've cleared that one some time earlier in my life.
"." Oh, I recognize it: It's a period. YES, it's a period! I'm so glad this sentence is finished, thank you Ron!"

Exclamation: "YES, RON, you're the greatest! Hip hip hooray!"



Did I miss anything about study tech that'd be worth to mention?

 

[DagwoodGum]

I think study tech is just another variation of an old and well-known sales-technique: The road to "Yes". It works like this, you talk to your customer about anything he would agree with and expand on that until you can get to the point to where he agrees with your offer.

Now let's apply that to study tech:

Pseudo-Ron says: "At one time I've been to a location and there I did this 'n that."

"At" OK, cleared that.
"one" Quite a few meanings, but yes, I think I got it in this context.
"time" Yup, cleared.
"I" Cleared that one a lot of times, so yes, it should be a no-brainer.
"'ve" Yes, cleared.
"been". Also yes.
"to" Yes.
"a" Yes.
"location" Yupp.
"and" Uhuh.
"there" OK.
"I" Yes, we've had that already.
"did" Yes.
"this" Absolutely cleared.
"'n" Now that was a hard one, but yes, I got it.
"that" Yes - I'm certain that I've cleared that one some time earlier in my life.
"." Oh, I recognize it: It's a period. YES, it's a period! I'm so glad this sentence is finished, thank you Ron!"

Exclamation: "YES, RON, you're the greatest! Hip hip hooray!"



Did I miss anything about study tech that'd be worth to mention?

You didn't miss anything of equal or of greater importance than that which you mentioned. There are of course a myriad of associative details that could be brought up though they need not be now that you've hit one of the main nails on the head.
But then you have a clear advantage that you give away in your disclaimer:
Disclaimer: I've never been in Scientology or in any other cult; I'm just a critic.

 

[MrNobody]

You didn't miss anything of equal or of greater importance than that which you mentioned. There are of course a myriad of associative details that could be brought up though they need not be now that you've hit one of the main nails on the head.

And this myriad of details is exactly where Ron hid his real goals behind: Your money and your servitude.

But then you have a clear advantage that you give away in your disclaimer:
Disclaimer: I've never been in Scientology or in any other cult; I'm just a critic.

All Scientologists and Exes have been Non-Scientologists at one time of their life - except the ones that were born into that cult.

Also: I could have easily fallen for that or any other cult at times, hadn't I had some good friends who set my head straight. I guess I've just been lucky.