The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

[Leon]

"In a nutshell his is saying that if a person believes something strongly in their mind, that something will tend to work for them."

So the world is flat for flat-earthers - that really works for them. This "create your own reality" idea has a very limited workability only - it's OK in minor tings like "every day in every way I am getting better" type of pap. It works while everything is going along smoothly, but when things turn sour the pack of cards comes tumbling down.

My experience of properly done Scio is that the gains are permanent and resilient.

 

[lkwdblds]

Taking a page from the Beatles ( that was the rock band Paul McCartney was in before Wings), I've used a lot of what is called tech over many decades. Before I ever heard of Scientology, a friend and I would sit for hours, looking at one another without talking. We got huge as beings. TR0 was a piss poor alteration of what we did.

That was the guy in your local bowling alley whom you encountered when you were new in your neighborhood, right?

Having gotten HSDC and briefing course training in Scientology, I've used listing and nulling, two way comm, and all the other procedures for decades. I've changed any number of people's lives for the better. I've helped, using the technology, to get people off alcohol and prescription drug addictions. I helped a lady recover from being completely bedridden and in major pain due to systemic arthritis. A friend gave his daughter an assist, when she was a kid, and the two of them watched as the wound healed before their eyes.

None of these things is 100% scientifically reproducible. They do happen with enough regularity, that I know there is some form of causation going on.

While I used an e meter for the first ten years, I don't really rely on one anymore. I prefer my own knowingness and observation.

I don't do a lot of the "standard" stuff. More times than not, I am not dressed "professionally," usually I'm in a t shirt ( the last time I noticed it was a 1986 Bay to Breakers t shirt), Levi's, and sandals , cowboy boots, or tennies.

I'm a fundamentalist. I believe in helping the PC get what they want. Be who they want to be. Do what they want to do. I'm not a big believer in the "cookie cutter" approach, where everyone gets the same program.

It sounds good to me, very good! You do not seem to ever get into these arguments where someone insists that it is all brainwashing and non scientific. I've engaged in a couple of those and want no further part of them because they never lead anywhere. There is never a product, only bad feelings.

Your line about some level of causation being involved, which I highlighted in red, really says it all. I gave one memorable Touch Assist, one spectacular Algebra tutoring session using skipped gradients and misunderstood word tech and one special PTS handling that fully restored a sick person's life. Just those 3 incidents alone were enough to show me that there is workability in some of Scio tech. I agree in your comment that helping the person is the key element. Adding be, do and have is a very nice twist on helping others.
Lakey

 

[thetanic]

It sounds good to me, very good! You do not seem to ever get into these arguments where someone insists that it is all brainwashing and non scientific. I've engaged in a couple of those and want no further part of them because they never lead anywhere. There is never a product, only bad feelings.

The problem is that LRH, who wouldn't know a scientific method from a condom, promoted that Dianetics and Scn were scientific. So even those who are genuine skeptics have a point: if it actually were scientific, there would be a scientific approach that's discernable.

So I really have no problem with that argument: it's a valid one, but flogging the horse too long and too hard can be tiresome.

There certainly are aspects of mind control in anything that will, you know, free the mind. I agree that people who harp on the brainwashing aspect are tiresome. (I find it especially ironic when they seem to think reverse auditing works....)

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

The Third "D"

Besides Deming and Drucker there is another “D” of note…Deal.

Terrence Deal is a PhD, Administration from Stanford that has written extensively regarding Corporate and Organizational Cultures. Deal and Allan Kennedy published the seminal work that founded the subject in 1982.

Besides the inherent flaws in El Ron’s MCCO and FEBC Model there is actually a more seriously flawed element to Scn’s operating predicates.

Extrapolating from Deal’s works it was predictable that the CofS would inevitably wind up where it is today. The leadership and top management under El Ron and Da Monster have fostered a predatory, greed based culture that parasitically stair step leeches from the bottom and outside to the top and inside. Leadership and top management are far more determinant of Corporate and Organizational Culture than structural elements and design.

I see on the Rathbunite boards that the ex insiders from Int are trying to paint a picture of El Ron with the ‘hue’ of "wanting for" Staff and SO to have good working and living conditions and be prosperous. Preposterous, absolutely preposterous.

It is my personal knowledge that El Ron was aware of the deplorable conditions of Staff and SO Crew, and so was Mary Sue. El Ron, with Mary Sue’s assistance, systematically leeched every last Penny they could out of the system into SO Reserves—which were controlled by them—and LRH Personal Accounts. Frankly, leeching doesn’t always kill the host—there is a symbioses wherein the host remains just enough alive to continue to feed the parasite. Parasites are, ultimately, slow-burn predators.

For many years I rationalized what I saw as I moved farther “up” and farther “in”. I held the concept that “great effort and sacrifice’ was needed to get Scn firmly established and that “things will get better” once we have a firm foundation. I eventually came to the realization that my concept, while reasoned and rational in general, was never gonna happen given what I had learned about EL Ron, the system and the CMO personalities that were “Taking the Helm for and from El Ron”.

One thing that El Ron’s predatory leech-host model required was periodically and consistently having “Someone and Something New”. I’ll explore this in another post in a few days.

Face

 

[Mark A. Baker]

It sounds good to me, very good! You do not seem to ever get into these arguments where someone insists that it is all brainwashing and non scientific. I've engaged in a couple of those and want no further part of them because they never lead anywhere. There is never a product, only bad feelings.

Here's an unsolicited suggestion: concede the point from the outset. This will often completely flummox the disputant as it is frequently the case he is simply out LOOKING for an argument.

Once it is fully agreed that the development of dianetics & scientology did NOT proceed along the lines of anything remotely like a scientific basis, then point out that over the last 60 years (and especially within the FIRST 30 years when there was much less centralized & dogmatic control over individual scientologists) literally tens of thousands of individuals have been audited on standard bridges to definite positive outcomes.

Further, point out that the actual technique used in developing scientology auditing processes originally was quite similar to what computer scientists have since termed "evolutionary development". This latter refers to a self-generating software engineering strategy which serves to develop efficient computing algorithms rapidly through minor alterations and culling of successful procedures with repetition of practice.

For these and similar reasons: "scientific" is inaccurate, whereas "technology" is not.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

The problem is that LRH, who wouldn't know a scientific method from a condom, ...

A fault possibly attributable to his catholic upbringing in view of that august institutions confusion over the efficacy of the "Rhythm Method" for scientific birth control.


Mark A. Baker

 

[thetanic]

A fault possibly attributable to his catholic upbringing in view of that august institutions confusion over the efficacy of the "Rhythm Method" for scientific birth control.

Mark A. Baker

Possibly also explaining the rhythm of auditing being bought in 12-1/2 hour blocks....

 

[Ted]

Besides Deming and Drucker there is another “D” of note…Deal.

Terrence Deal is a PhD, Administration from Stanford that has written extensively regarding Corporate and Organizational Cultures. Deal and Allan Kennedy published the seminal work that founded the subject in 1982.

Besides the inherent flaws in El Ron’s MCCO and FEBC Model there is actually a more seriously flawed element to Scn’s operating predicates.

Extrapolating from Deal’s works it was predictable that the CofS would inevitably wind up where it is today. The leadership and top management under El Ron and Da Monster have fostered a predatory, greed based culture that parasitically stair step leeches from the bottom and outside to the top and inside. Leadership and top management are far more determinant of Corporate and Organizational Culture than structural elements and design.

I see on the Rathbunite boards that the ex insiders from Int are trying to paint a picture of El Ron with the ‘hue’ of "wanting for" Staff and SO to have good working and living conditions and be prosperous. Preposterous, absolutely preposterous.

It is my personal knowledge that El Ron was aware of the deplorable conditions of Staff and SO Crew, and so was Mary Sue. El Ron, with Mary Sue’s assistance, systematically leeched every last Penny they could out of the system into SO Reserves—which were controlled by them—and LRH Personal Accounts. Frankly, leeching doesn’t always kill the host—there is a symbioses wherein the host remains just enough alive to continue to feed the parasite. Parasites are, ultimately, slow-burn predators.

For many years I rationalized what I saw as I moved farther “up” and farther “in”. I held the concept that “great effort and sacrifice’ was needed to get Scn firmly established and that “things will get better” once we have a firm foundation. I eventually came to the realization that my concept, while reasoned and rational in general, was never gonna happen given what I had learned about EL Ron, the system and the CMO personalities that were “Taking the Helm for and from El Ron”.

One thing that El Ron’s predatory leech-host model required was periodically and consistently having “Someone and Something New”. I’ll explore this in another post in a few days.

Face

Along the lines of effective management tech, I offer this 18 minute video.

From the web site: "Simon Sinek has a simple but powerful model for inspirational leadership all starting with a golden circle and the question "Why?" His examples include Apple, Martin Luther King, and the Wright brothers -- and as a counterpoint Tivo, which (until a recent court victory that tripled its stock price) appeared to be struggling.

"In 2009, Simon Sinek released the book "Start With Why" -- a synopsis of the theory he has begun using to teach others how to become effective leaders and inspire change."

There were times when Hubbard certainly seemed inspired. He wrote that way, he spoke that way. Then, he lost it.

See if there is anything here that would inspire more talk on this matter. I find it fascinating:

Simon Sinek: How Great Leaders Inspire Action

 

[lkwdblds]

I find great value in empirical evidence.

The problem is that LRH, who wouldn't know a scientific method from a condom, promoted that Dianetics and Scn were scientific. So even those who are genuine skeptics have a point: if it actually were scientific, there would be a scientific approach that's discernable.

So I really have no problem with that argument: it's a valid one, but flogging the horse too long and too hard can be tiresome.

There certainly are aspects of mind control in anything that will, you know, free the mind. I agree that people who harp on the brainwashing aspect are tiresome. (I find it especially ironic when they seem to think reverse auditing works....)

EMPIRCAL EVIDENCE: To me direct observation, producing a predictable result time after time is sufficient grounds to adopt a procedure, a theory or a method of doing something. I believe in current Scientific Studies, as taught in the Univerities, overwhelming empirical evidence is not looked at as scientific but instead as anecdotal. Empirical evidence is most commonly used as a procedure to test scientific theories for validity rather than to develop the scientific theories themselves. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

I feel that trying a technique out over and over and seeing that it works time after time is sufficiently scientific for one to adopt the usage of that technique. As Carmelo mentioned in his earlier post today, a repeated activity producing a beneficial result is evidence of some sort of causation. Example: What if I used crushed pomegranite seeds as a remedy to cure warts. Every time I had a wart, that concoction caused it to go away in two days. I told my friends and family and they had the same results. Someone publishes a book, it works in over 95% of all cases and people start using this as a home remedy. The University does double blind studies with placebos and their study stretches over 7 years and they conclude that pomegranite seeds have no power whatsoever to cure warts. My reaction would be to say, who cares what the scientific tests showed, I will continue using the remedy. As to the testers, I would say that there is a causation level present which their tests were not sophisticated enough to detect.

For some of Hubbards techniques such as Touch Assists, word clearing, listing, listing and nulling, PTS interviews and the like there has been over 50 years of empirical testing with tens of thousands of people having consistent success with various techniques. To conclude that some level of causation is taking place, even without knowing what it is or how it is manifesting itslef, is not totally unscientific to me. Empirical evidence does employ a cetain amount of scientific testing statistically because the chances of so many trials producing positive results on the basis of random chance alone is too infinitesimally small to be given any serious consideration.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Here's an unsolicited suggestion: concede the point from the outset. This will often completely flummox the disputant as it is frequently the case he is simply out LOOKING for an argument.

Once it is fully agreed that the development of dianetics & scientology did NOT proceed along the lines of anything remotely like a scientific basis, then point out that over the last 60 years (and especially within the FIRST 30 years when there was much less centralized & dogmatic control over individual scientologists) literally tens of thousands of individuals have been audited on standard bridges to definite positive outcomes.

Further, point out that the actual technique used in developing scientology auditing processes originally was quite similar to what computer scientists have since termed "evolutionary development". This latter refers to a self-generating software engineering strategy which serves to develop efficient computing algorithms rapidly through minor alterations and culling of successful procedures with repetition of practice.

For these and similar reasons: "scientific" is inaccurate, whereas "technology" is not.


Mark A. Baker

The Paragraph of yours which I highlighted in red is argument I haven't heard before and might be worth a try. The problem which I see is that most of the people whom one argues with are fixed and rigid in their ways, they are looking for a fight, and they are heavily relying on a "service fac" to make themselves right. Most of their arguments are based on emotion and not on fact and they also use the technique of poking fun at their opponents and degrading them instead of debating the issues. My response is, "Who needs it?" There is nothing to be gained in arguing with people.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Besides Deming and Drucker there is another “D” of note…Deal.

Terrence Deal is a PhD, Administration from Stanford that has written extensively regarding Corporate and Organizational Cultures. Deal and Allan Kennedy published the seminal work that founded the subject in 1982.

Besides the inherent flaws in El Ron’s MCCO and FEBC Model there is actually a more seriously flawed element to Scn’s operating predicates.

Extrapolating from Deal’s works it was predictable that the CofS would inevitably wind up where it is today. The leadership and top management under El Ron and Da Monster have fostered a predatory, greed based culture that parasitically stair step leeches from the bottom and outside to the top and inside. Leadership and top management are far more determinant of Corporate and Organizational Culture than structural elements and design.

I see on the Rathbunite boards that the ex insiders from Int are trying to paint a picture of El Ron with the ‘hue’ of "wanting for" Staff and SO to have good working and living conditions and be prosperous. Preposterous, absolutely preposterous.

It is my personal knowledge that El Ron was aware of the deplorable conditions of Staff and SO Crew, and so was Mary Sue. El Ron, with Mary Sue’s assistance, systematically leeched every last Penny they could out of the system into SO Reserves—which were controlled by them—and LRH Personal Accounts. Frankly, leeching doesn’t always kill the host—there is a symbioses wherein the host remains just enough alive to continue to feed the parasite. Parasites are, ultimately, slow-burn predators.

For many years I rationalized what I saw as I moved farther “up” and farther “in”. I held the concept that “great effort and sacrifice’ was needed to get Scn firmly established and that “things will get better” once we have a firm foundation. I eventually came to the realization that my concept, while reasoned and rational in general, was never gonna happen given what I had learned about EL Ron, the system and the CMO personalities that were “Taking the Helm for and from El Ron”.

One thing that El Ron’s predatory leech-host model required was periodically and consistently having “Someone and Something New”. I’ll explore this in another post in a few days.

Face

Face, can you elaborate a little on the last paragraph I highlighted in red. I understand the Something new but not the Someone new. Why was someone new needed and what type of people were brought in to be that someone. Is this one of the reasons LRH did not want to groom a Vice Commodore or a visible second in command? Is it also why popular and respected Scientologists such as Mc Master were gotten rid of?

Its interesting that you pointed out that Mary Sue was involved in the skimming of money and also knew that staff and crew lived in deplorable conditions. I tended to look at her as a victim of sorts, especially since LRH let her go to prison for him in Operation Snow White. She was the only one other than LRH who had a decent standard of living over the years who was crew in the C of S system.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Fantastic Video

Along the lines of effective management tech, I offer this 18 minute video.

From the web site: "Simon Sinek has a simple but powerful model for inspirational leadership all starting with a golden circle and the question "Why?" His examples include Apple, Martin Luther King, and the Wright brothers -- and as a counterpoint Tivo, which (until a recent court victory that tripled its stock price) appeared to be struggling.

"In 2009, Simon Sinek released the book "Start With Why" -- a synopsis of the theory he has begun using to teach others how to become effective leaders and inspire change."

There were times when Hubbard certainly seemed inspired. He wrote that way, he spoke that way. Then, he lost it.

See if there is anything here that would inspire more talk on this matter. I find it fascinating:

Simon Sinek: How Great Leaders Inspire Action

Ted, I found the Simon Sinek video extremely inspiring. The only thing that did not totally enthrall me was the emphasis he put on various levels of the brain. History is full of men and women who people would look to as a leader and when reviewing the passing parade of heroes in one's mind they seem to have the "why" value which Sinek is talking about. Gandhi comes to mind, Mother Teresa, Thomas Edison, Pasteur, many others.

Yes, of course, L Ron Hubbard, had the ability to inspire people to follow him for little or no pay and a total absence of creature comforts and according to Sinek, people were doing it for themselves and not just for Hubbard. Hubbard told us a why and we bought the man's why and not his product. That is what is so different about Hubbard when compared to Martin Luther King, the Wright Brothers and Apple Computer. People bought their why and everyone prospered. With Hubbard, we bought his why but he tricked us and his stated why was not his real why. As a result, we all took losses, though gaining something beneficial in the process. Hitler was another who sold his why and his countrymen bought it. Those who followed Hitler at the end had nothing to show for it but losses.

POSSIBLE THEORY BASED ON THE GOLDEN CIRCLE.
Most of the movers and shakers in history have instinctively communicated a why to the public which resonated with that public. Other people who were equally or better qualified to deliver a product communicated their what and not their why and were not as successful.

Most of the movers and shakers in history who have successfully communicated their why and who the people were willing to follow in totality have been pro survival types and the people who followed them or bought into them made gains and benefited from following them. Stellar examples are the Wright Brothers, Martin Luther King, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Gandhi, Apple Computer, perhaps IBM of the 1950s amd 60's, etc. including Jesus Christ.

It can happen that very evil people or people with split personalities, part evil, part pro survival can communicate their why's and have them resonate with the public. Stellar examples are Hitler for an extremely evil person and perhaps LRH as someone of mixed traits

FINAL RESULT - At the end of the day, those who backed the Wright Brothers, King or Apple Computer company came out winners. Those who backed Hitler came out losers, really gaining nothing worthwhile from their backing him but only pain and losses. Those of us who backed Hubbard fared somewhere in between. Some had their lives ruined or even had premature deaths resulting from backing Hubbard. Those of us who got out in one piece, usually had something of a substantial and beneficial nature happen to us which improved our abilities but also suffered hardship and damages to our lives from buying into Hubbard's why.

COROLLARY TO SINEK'S GOLDEN CIRCLE: The concept of selling the why is a brilliant piece of truth but those who are able to sell it are not uniformly good. If you follow such a person or company by buying their why, how you turn out at the end of that game is a testimonial to the worth of the person's why and indirectly to the worth of the person himself. If the person you bought into led you to a richer life, his dreams and core why were pure, if you were led to disaster in following him, his dreams and core why were evil and if you had both benefits and losses, the person who you followed was a mixed bag in the same ratio as your personal gains and losses.

How's that for a start, Ted, for kicking off a discussion of what Sinek had to say?
Lakey

 

[Blue Spirit]

High IQ

Here's an unsolicited suggestion: concede the point from the outset. This will often completely flummox the disputant as it is frequently the case he is simply out LOOKING for an argument.

Once it is fully agreed that the development of dianetics & scientology did NOT proceed along the lines of anything remotely like a scientific basis, then point out that over the last 60 years (and especially within the FIRST 30 years when there was much less centralized & dogmatic control over individual scientologists) literally tens of thousands of individuals have been audited on standard bridges to definite positive outcomes.

Further, point out that the actual technique used in developing scientology auditing processes originally was quite similar to what computer scientists have since termed "evolutionary development". This latter refers to a self-generating software engineering strategy which serves to develop efficient computing algorithms rapidly through minor alterations and culling of successful procedures with repetition of practice.

For these and similar reasons: "scientific" is inaccurate, whereas "technology" is not.

Mark A. Baker

Mark with your high IQ, you have pointed out the Truth again. Well said.

 

[Blue Spirit]

EMPIRICAL

EMPIRCAL EVIDENCE: To me direct observation, producing a predictable result time after time is sufficient grounds to adopt a procedure, a theory or a method of doing something. I believe in current Scientific Studies, as taught in the Univerities, overwhelming empirical evidence is not looked at as scientific but instead as anecdotal. Empirical evidence is most commonly used as a procedure to test scientific theories for validity rather than to develop the scientific theories themselves. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

I feel that trying a technique out over and over and seeing that it works time after time is sufficiently scientific for one to adopt the usage of that technique. As Carmelo mentioned in his earlier post today, a repeated activity producing a beneficial result is evidence of some sort of causation. Example: What if I used crushed pomegranite seeds as a remedy to cure warts. Every time I had a wart, that concoction caused it to go away in two days. I told my friends and family and they had the same results. Someone publishes a book, it works in over 95% of all cases and people start using this as a home remedy. The University does double blind studies with placebos and their study stretches over 7 years and they conclude that pomegranite seeds have no power whatsoever to cure warts. My reaction would be to say, who cares what the scientific tests showed, I will continue using the remedy. As to the testers, I would say that there is a causation level present which their tests were not sophisticated enough to detect.

For some of Hubbards techniques such as Touch Assists, word clearing, listing, listing and nulling, PTS interviews and the like there has been over 50 years of empirical testing with tens of thousands of people having consistent success with various techniques. To conclude that some level of causation is taking place, even without knowing what it is or how it is manifesting itslef, is not totally unscientific to me. Empirical evidence does employ a cetain amount of scientific testing statistically because the chances of so many trials producing positive results on the basis of random chance alone is too infinitesimally small to be given any serious consideration.
Lakey

Lakey, I am certainly with you on the Empirical Philosophy.

If LRH had gone with the inability-to-observe "Scientific" methods, he would
have failed and never accomplished the Tech achievements he did.

A Being's basic ability to Pervade and Look IS NATURALLY EMPIRICAL.

 

[Blue Spirit]

Wisdom

The Paragraph of yours which I highlighted in red is argument I haven't heard before and might be worth a try. The problem which I see is that most of the people whom one argues with are fixed and rigid in their ways, they are looking for a fight, and they are heavily relying on a "service fac" to make themselves right. Most of their arguments are based on emotion and not on fact and they also use the technique of poking fun at their opponents and degrading them instead of debating the issues. My response is, "Who needs it?" There is nothing to be gained in arguing with people.
Lakey

Your Wisdom is too advanced for many here.

 

[lkwdblds]

I believe the rule applies more to mental and spiritual technologies.

"In a nutshell his is saying that if a person believes something strongly in their mind, that something will tend to work for them."

So the world is flat for flat-earthers - that really works for them. This "create your own reality" idea has a very limited workability only - it's OK in minor tings like "every day in every way I am getting better" type of pap. It works while everything is going along smoothly, but when things turn sour the pack of cards comes tumbling down.

My experience of properly done Scio is that the gains are permanent and resilient.

Leon, I believe Van Staden's remarks and hence mine as well applied mainly in subjective studies such as studies of one's mind or one's spiritual nature. For a solid objective study such as Geology the remarks would not apply. You use the differentation between minor things and major things in life while I am using the differentation between objective things and subjective things. I don't think we are that far apaprt. Perhaps I did not explain my point clearly enough.

I don't believe flat Earthers exist any longer or am I wrong? The only reason anyone would claim to be one would be only for publicity purposes. Theoretically, a flat earther could be taken up in a space ship and directly view the Earth as a spheroid from above and be forced to recant.

In a subjective study, its harder to say who is right and who isn't. If a person believes he is right, things may tend in that direction for him. Many people swear by their Psychiatric prescription drugs. I would never take one of those but people will swear that they are helped by them and their life would be ruined without them. Believing something like this in a subjective field tends to lead to SELF FULFILLING PROPHESIES. That is the only point I was making!
Lakey

 

[Mark A. Baker]

The Paragraph of yours which I highlighted in red is argument I haven't heard before and might be worth a try. The problem which I see is that most of the people whom one argues with are fixed and rigid in their ways, they are looking for a fight, and they are heavily relying on a "service fac" to make themselves right. Most of their arguments are based on emotion and not on fact and they also use the technique of poking fun at their opponents and degrading them instead of debating the issues. My response is, "Who needs it?" There is nothing to be gained in arguing with people.
Lakey

Hence the value of the first paragraph, which for convenience follows.

Here's an unsolicited suggestion: concede the point from the outset. This will often completely flummox the disputant as it is frequently the case he is simply out LOOKING for an argument.

Mark A. Baker
p.s. hope you're doing well.

 

[lkwdblds]

Another "Scientific" aspect of Hubbard's tech.

The problem is that LRH, who wouldn't know a scientific method from a condom, promoted that Dianetics and Scn were scientific. So even those who are genuine skeptics have a point: if it actually were scientific, there would be a scientific approach that's discernable.

So I really have no problem with that argument: it's a valid one, but flogging the horse too long and too hard can be tiresome.

There certainly are aspects of mind control in anything that will, you know, free the mind. I agree that people who harp on the brainwashing aspect are tiresome. (I find it especially ironic when they seem to think reverse auditing works....)

Thetanic, yesterday I answered your post stating that in my opinion the gathering of Empirical Evidence is a valid Scientific approach to research. Today, I thought of another facet of Hubbard's studies which he used to back up his claims that his tech was Scientific.

HUBBARD'S AXIOMS AND LOGICS
In both Dianetics and Scientology, Hubbard spent considerable time developing basic principles upon which his studies were based. Thus we have the Axioms of Dianetics and and Axioms of Scientology. These are stated to be Self Evident truths upon which Dianetics and Scientology are based on. They are the building blocks upon which the subjects are built.

The effort put into conceiving of and writing out these Axioms is quite brilliant and the Axioms for the most part tend to be very interesting to read and do seem to summarize many truths.

THE TIE IN TO ANCIENT GREEK SCIENCE
Euclid is looked at as a great philosoper and also a mathematician. His Axioms of Geometry are highly regarded in Western culture. No one has ever accused Euclid of "drinking the Kool Aid" and being a charlatan.

Ancient Greek philosophy and science did not use the trappings of today's Western science. They did not do double blind testing with placebos, something did not have to be published in peer journals to be creditable. Moving forward into the Rennaisance, the Scientific Method was developed, there was no double blind testing, no placebos were tried. Men of brilliance in Science, observed the world empirically, had questions or "whys" they wanted answered and came up with theories. They concocted experiments to prove or disprove their theories. If their experiments worked one for one on an empirical basis, they published their results and that became new Science. Somewhere in the late 19th Century, the methods demanded of today's science were born. These may be looked at as refinments to the scientific method but an enormous amount of valid Science was developed before these methods ever saw the light of day.

Hubbard's methods did not rigidly follow 20th century scientific procedures but they were more typical of Science as it was practiced during the Golden Age of ancient Greece.

Archimedes was one of the greatest scientists who ever lived and how did he discover the law of hydraulics? He took a bath in a completely full tub and noticed that his body caused a certain amount of water to overflow from the tub and onto the floor. He realized that if the overflow water was gathered into a container, its mass must equal his body's mass. The local king was being cheated by people selling him things which looked like gold but which were not gold and the king wanted a scientific means to detect whether something was true gold or not. As the legend goes, Archimedes upon realization of the law of hydraulics jumped out of his tub and ran down the streets of Athens, shouting "Eureka, Eureka!, (I have found it!)" The king's dilemma was solved, a water immersion test could be done for determining if something was true gold or a fake substitute. THAT IS THE WAY SCIENCE WAS DONE IN ANCIENT TIMES.

In conclusion, Hubbard has two factors to cite when claiming his work is Scientific. One is that the subjects were developed based on a set of Axioms which Hubbard also developed and two is that the subjects were developed using a large number of trials and observing Empirically that consistent positive results were being obtained. Running all the requisite testing required do making the theories completely Scientific in the eyes of the Universities would have been nice but Hubbard did not want to take the time or the expense to do that. Therefore, we may never know if his theories would have passed the rigorous testing demanded of today's science.
Lakey

 

[Ted]

Ted, I found the Simon Sinek video extremely inspiring. The only thing that did not totally enthrall me was the emphasis he put on various levels of the brain.
[snippage...]

COROLLARY TO SINEK'S GOLDEN CIRCLE: The concept of selling the why is a brilliant piece of truth but those who are able to sell it are not uniformly good. If you follow such a person or company by buying their why, how you turn out at the end of that game is a testimonial to the worth of the person's why and indirectly to the worth of the person himself. If the person you bought into led you to a richer life, his dreams and core why were pure, if you were led to disaster in following him, his dreams and core why were evil and if you had both benefits and losses, the person who you followed was a mixed bag in the same ratio as your personal gains and losses.

How's that for a start, Ted, for kicking off a discussion of what Sinek had to say?
Lakey

Since I am no longer focused on HubTech to the exclusion of other stuff, I am fascinated by our knowledge of the brain and how it works. One day science will meet spirit then both camps can really move forward.

Several things stood out in my perceptions and thoughts while I watched the video:

1) Hubbard had a Why (as defined in the video). This he communicated.

2) He attracted people on the bleeding/leading edge of the human potential movement, the innovators. That is said to be 2.5% of the population. This, for the sake of discussion, I take to mean many of the actual old-timers.

3) 13% are the early adopters. This I take to be the participants through the mid-'50s and LRH-delivered, 1964 BC. The "why," as used in the video, vanished, as Alan Walter had noted, mid-lecture in 1964 when LRH was talking about GPMs in one sentence and switched right into study tech. In 1965 with the issue of KSW-1 the initial why, promotional or actual but the one we bought, had been replaced by another "why," the all importance of LRH and his alter-ego, scientology. And this could have been the actual, unmarketable "why" all along.

4) The next 34% are the early majority. I place that as the boom throughout the '70s after the debacle of failed GPM research and Quickie Grades was sorted out.

5) The next 34% is the late majority. This I place as happening through the '80s and '90s with the WISE groups contributing heavily to bringing in a new type of public, the doctors, dentists, chiropractors, etc. The majority of whom did not go for training as much as they did auditing.

6) The final 16% are the laggards. A movement cannot be built on laggards.

The above is my analysis. Yours may differ as your perceptions and experience differs from mine.

7) My next thought is that DM doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of bringing back the why, and thus the how and the what. He has made a "dog's breakfast," to use an LRH metaphor, of the tech.

Of more importance to leadership training now, Simon Sinek is saying, this is how real leaders communicate. I can make use of that.

 

[lkwdblds]

A couple of comments

Since I am no longer focused on HubTech to the exclusion of other stuff, I am fascinated by our knowledge of the brain and how it works. One day science will meet spirit then both camps can really move forward.

Several things stood out in my perceptions and thoughts while I watched the video:

1) Hubbard had a Why (as defined in the video). This he communicated.

2) He attracted people on the bleeding/leading edge of the human potential movement, the innovators. That is said to be 2.5% of the population. This, for the sake of discussion, I take to mean many of the actual old-timers.

3) 13% are the early adopters. This I take to be the participants through the mid-'50s and LRH-delivered, 1964 BC. The "why," as used in the video, vanished, as Alan Walter had noted, mid-lecture in 1964 when LRH was talking about GPMs in one sentence and switched right into study tech. In 1965 with the issue of KSW-1 the initial why, promotional or actual but the one we bought, had been replaced by another "why," the all importance of LRH and his alter-ego, scientology. And this could have been the actual, unmarketable "why" all along.

4) The next 34% are the early majority. I place that as the boom throughout the '70s after the debacle of failed GPM research and Quickie Grades was sorted out.

5) The next 34% is the late majority. This I place as happening through the '80s and '90s with the WISE groups contributing heavily to bringing in a new type of public, the doctors, dentists, chiropractors, etc. The majority of whom did not go for training as much as they did auditing.

6) The final 16% are the laggards. A movement cannot be built on laggards.

The above is my analysis. Yours may differ as your perceptions and experience differs from mine.

7) My next thought is that DM doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of bringing back the why, and thus the how and the what. He has made a "dog's breakfast," to use an LRH metaphor, of the tech.

Of more importance to leadership training now, Simon Sinek is saying, this is how real leaders communicate. I can make use of that.

Really a fine post Ted! On the brain issue, I believe the brain is much more important than just being a switchboard as Hubbard said it was but I feel that there is a spiritual component senior to anything the brain is doing.

On your comments as to the Innovators, the Early Adapter, Early Majority, etc. I agree if it is being used as an allegory. If you are using it literally, then a person's date of birth would have to be factored in.

On DM, wow, no one would buy his why in the open market! He inherited his position of power by use of chicanery and took over Hubbard's flock of adherents. I can't see anyone buying into his why if he was starting from scratch. WOW, THAT COULD BE ANOTHER COROLLARY FOR SINEK'S GOLDEN CIRCLE. What happens when the original Innovater dies and someone else takes over his group of followers? If the new guy has the exact same why, then everything goes smoothly but if he or she doesn't, then what happens? Fascinating and again Corollary #1 has value after the fact. If you look at DM's followers, inherited from Hubbard, for example, you can see by the condition the followers are in how the two whys are the same and how the two whys are different.

On using SINEK's method of communicating one's why instead of selling the what, I, like you, think that we should shift gears and start selling our why's as we interact with people during our normal course of living. I think we should see gains made in our lives immediately if we adopt this technique.
Lakey