I don't how people get so worked up about Study Tech. It is NOT a "technology". If you apply it exactly as stated you will end up a moronic, brain-washed imbecile who has lost all critical-thinking skills.
Having said that a person should be familiar with both the current definitions of words, along with common and unique usages. It is good to grasp how OTHER people unerstand the same words. Words ONLY have meaning based on what is true for people. The definitions don't exist out there" separate from the minds that agree with the various definitions. Dictionaries exist because some folks have studied and surveyed many people to ascertain what the
agreed-upon meanings are. And, meanings change over time. They are not etched in stone.
It IS good to balance "mass" with "significance". But, I don't think Hubbard ever explained it properly. For example, when I was in college I studied basic electronics in my sophomore year. In addition to learning all the theory, I also attended a "lab" each week where we did "practical drills and applications" of what we learned for theory. We would set up resistors, with voltages and measure "current". It helped make the theory more "real". It connected the IDEAS about some aspect of reality WITH ACTUAL BEHAVIORS of reality.
But, THAT idea is common, and is not unique to Hubbard. While I learned how to "demo", I quickly became "fast flow" so I wouldn't have to waste all of that time doing such crap. I could quickly envision a "demo" in my head - no need to take the time to go through the motions "out there". The idea of doing demos was entirely useless to me. :confused2:
The notion of a
skipped gradient is common sense. Of course, if you don't learn a basic or prerequisite, you will have trouble with the later aspects of the subject that depend on the earlier.
The "physical manifestations" of the "barriers to study" are STUPID! That a person would be concerned with and pay attention to "bodily reactions" to determine whether or not he or she "understands" something is absurd. There were MANY times when I was on some course, and I "suppressed yawns". I knew full well that the yawn had NOTHING to do with what I was studying. But if the supervisor saw you, "what is your MU"? Or, "do need to demo more"?
Notions such as "the
only reason a person gives up the study of a subject is because of MUs" is NUTS.
Hubbard grazes on an idea that
is VERY important, but which he never sufficiently expanded upon. He got the idea from General Semantics (where the idea is much better explored).
An aim of ANY student should be to connect 1) IDEAS and THEORY with the 2) actual situations and events out in the real world of observable behavior.
In General Semantics this is known as coming down the ladder of abstraction and dealing with SPECIFIC examples and cases of ACTUAL behaviors.
Hubbard suggested this on a study tape (which few remember, and few do).
If you have trouble making sense of some IDEA ask these two questions:
1. How can it be or how is it that way? Give EXAMPLES.
2. How is it NOT that way? Give examples.
This encourages a person to CONNECT the realm of thought (which is always to some degree abstract and vague) to the
DETAILS of observable events, situations and scenarios. But of course, Hubbard could NOT allow or encourage people to REALLY do that in Scientology, because if they did, they would "see through" many of Hubbard's ideas. because, MANY of the IDEAS in Scientology cannot and do not connect up well with honest observations of details, specifics and actual realities.
If you honestly try to connect SPECIFICS with these sort of ideas, you will come up BLANK:
1. Scientology is a workable spiritual technology.
2. Scientology makes OTs.
3. A Clear has perfect recall.
4. You future depends entirely with what YOU do with Sceintology NOW.
5. If Scientology doesn't make it, our civilization has no chance of making it.
6. Any person who dislikes or attacks Scientology must be a suppressive person.
7. It is a Suppressive Act to talk critically of Scientology or Scientologists to the press.
These are just STUPID ideas, that for the most part, CANNOT
ever connect up well to OBSERVABLE REAL BEHAVIORS of REAL THINGS. These are largely
imaginary, and what
Study Tech does is gets suckers to ACCEPT such nonsense as true.
I think the idea of a "checksheet" IS a good idea. Setting out the study of any suibject in some proper sequence is sensible. The idea of
twinning to help another with theory in any subject can be helpful.
Some have mentioned
context. This is vital, and a person should be familiar with this idea and how it relates to concepts. While science in the past has operated with a tendency to examine the "small parts", what is being seen now is that the PATTERNS and RELATIONSHIPS are what really matter. How the parts are all organized together is what is key. How the parts are arranged is what gives any thing its actual identity and "personality".
For example, that is true for molecules. All elements are made up of the same "building blocks" (electrons, protons, etc.), yet depending on HOW these building blocks are ARRANGED, the properties vary wildly. It is ALL in the organization - or
context - how the parts are put together and how they are arranged together.
For example, the word "answer" might mean 1) what a person responds in reply to a question, or 2) the solution to a problem on a test. The ONLY way you can know what the words "means" is IN an
exact context. It has "all meanings" if there is no context. Any single word has a
potential for meaning, and this exact meaning will "fall out of the many possibilities" (like a quantum state) when a specific context is defined by using the word in some sentence. See? Until a
specific case is provided, which
creates the context, the word has all or no meaning.
Billy gave the wrong answer to the math equation on the test.
His mother yelled, "answer me now, or you are grounded".
THIS understanding is FAR more important than a great deal of the crap Hubbard yaps about. And getting this
understanding has very little to do with nutty notions like ARC.
See, Hubbard USED
Study Tech as part of a strict system of
indoctrination (brain-washing). And, while it may have decent uses outside of the context of the Church of Scientology, to be useful and valid it would have to be 1)
stripped of all the STUPID ideas, and 2)
integrated with OTHER valid and useful information on study.
But, really, the notion of "technology" is a scam perpetrated by Hubbard. Anybody who actually thinks that "study tech" involves a "technology" like the technologies of electronics or intergrated circuit design, is a
total fucking doofus. I have found that people who buy into and think with such ideas are LOST in an intricate web of strange significances (ideas, concepts, meanings, etc.). Such people refuse to
balance mass and significance, and remain largely isolated on an island of thinkingness that remains forever disconnected from detailed observations of REAL people, events and situations.