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

[lkwdblds]

Nice observation in your last line!

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.

Nice observation in your quote which I made red! Those of us who consider ourselves spiritual beings, want to make ourselves more Godlike. We have one basic viewpoint, God has an infinite number of viewpoints. We can strive towards a Godlike quality by granting beingness to more than just our own viewpoint.

I can't see a God running double blind test with placebos and writing his findings in peer journals so as to get approval from his peers. God, by definition is Cause. Now, to get Godlike, we have to grant beingness to those viewpoints who insist that full University type double blind procedures be run and published before something can be considered Scientific. This is not hard to do because those procedures do have validity and value and have produced gains for mankind but those procedures are not an end all in themselves. There is still room for us to pervade and look. The two different approaches to the scientific method should be used complimentarily and not adversarially
Lakey

 

[Blue Spirit]

University

[/COLOR]

Nice observation in your quote which I made red! Those of us who consider ourselves spiritual beings, want to make ourselves more Godlike. We have one basic viewpoint, God has an infinite number of viewpoints. We can strive towards a Godlike quality by granting beingness to more than just our own viewpoint.

I can't see a God running double blind test with placebos and writing his findings in peer journals so as to get approval from his peers. God, by definition is Cause. Now, to get Godlike, we have to grant beingness to those viewpoints who insist that full University type double blind procedures be run and published before something can be considered Scientific. This is not hard to do because those procedures do have validity and value and have produced gains for mankind but those procedures are not an end all in themselves. There is still room for us to pervade and look. The two different approaches to the scientific method should be used complimentarily and not adversarially
Lakey

I see the University methods as needlessly Pedantic and can never match the
observations of a Being, as to results or speed.
The latter have been suppressed for so long in Scientology and by the general society for much longer that few have a clue as to their native skills and powers.

I know some with more Native Being skills than I have, but nevertheless I'll mention a couple of Pervading Events I did, out of many.
At 11 years old I pervaded my aesthetic looking Bible and realized the answers I was seeking were not there. That was my last day of "Sunday School".
At the age of 25 I pervaded the National Institute for Cancer Research and knew immediately with no thought that if they had wanted to solve cancer, it would have already been done. I knew little about health at the time, but later reading certainly confirmed that understanding.

There are many more like this, but since so many here don't appreciate "OT" concepts or phenomena, I'll not waste my time.

 

[Blue Spirit]

What Really Happened To Scientology and LRH

I just ran across this wirteup which clearly ties together the source and underlying factors in the demise of the workable parts (emphasis on OT qualities). It gives a very intriguing history of the whys, hows, whens, whats,
and whos behind what happened.
For me it ties many pieces of the puzzle together, not missing any important ones. It has a direct and complete logic that agrees with all I've come to know
in four years of reading on the net regarding Scientology and LRH.

The government would have paid no attention to LRH unless he was discovering things that made them nervous or more to the point in terror that someone would come to know what the government was doing.

The story starts in the late 1940's, and this is from a recorded interview done by "Dane Tops" in Sept., 2009. I have been impressed by his writings before,
but this goes way beyond anything else I've read on the net.

It is not for those who can't look at conspriracies.

It is long at about 40 pages, but well worth the read, IMNSHO.

 

[Ted]

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

Allegory? You lost me on that one. Care to clarify?

As for DM, he obviously had a different "why." One of his first actions was to get rid of all the early innovators. I believe had I been in that position I would have given them long overdue praise and recognition thus inviting further contribution.

But what do I know being the SP squirrel that I am.

I think you are correct in your last paragraph. The difficulty in communicating beliefs openly and candidly is that beliefs are very close to home for the being. Any invalidation of belief tends to carry over as an invalidation of the being. It is my contention that to be OT (an accomplished being) a person has to get over the inval and eval buttons. But that is another subject for discussion later.

 

[thetanic]

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.

No question. It was also easy to see things that worked once on me worked (for me). However, there was no codified research that anyone could examine, even under some kind of non-disclosure. You shouldn't have to buy in for that, and Scn does require buy-in. Sorry, that's not scientific.

So it was easy for me to see that something worked for me, but impossible (for me) to get to the KSW point of knowing it was correct in a larger sense.

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

I like it!

Thank you re: Simon Sinek. This is good stuff, Ted! Your extrapolations are excellent IMO and “foot” nicely with where I was eventually going on my “Readers Digest” Treatment. I appreciate you’re input and will “tie” your points into the final post of my “abridged treatment”, which is a few post away.

Lakey, Blue Spirit, Mark A., Thetanic, Enthetan, et al…I think were we’re getting’ somewhere together on making this a nice little “Treatise”…I’m personally gaining a lot from all yall’s viewpoints and thoughtful posts…all we need now is for Carmelo to come in and “take the edge off” a little bit.

More later.

Face

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.

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

Ah...Yeah...OK

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

Ah...yeah, Lakey...I'll elaborate on what you highlighted in red. That's kinda what I meant by, "I’ll explore this in another post in a few days." :confused2:

Peace Bro',

Face

 

[lkwdblds]

It sounds intriguing, just be ready for an argument!

I just ran across this wirteup which clearly ties together the source and underlying factors in the demise of the workable parts (emphasis on OT qualities). It gives a very intriguing history of the whys, hows, whens, whats,
and whos behind what happened.
For me it ties many pieces of the puzzle together, not missing any important ones. It has a direct and complete logic that agrees with all I've come to know
in four years of reading on the net regarding Scientology and LRH.

The government would have paid no attention to LRH unless he was discovering things that made them nervous or more to the point in terror that someone would come to know what the government was doing.

The story starts in the late 1940's, and this is from a recorded interview done by "Dane Tops" in Sept., 2009. I have been impressed by his writings before,
but this goes way beyond anything else I've read on the net.

It is not for those who can't look at conspriracies.

It is long at about 40 pages, but well worth the read, IMNSHO.

Blue, It sounds intriguing, I will check it our. If Zinj and Veda read about this then get ready for a fight, a real brawl. They do not take kindly to conspiracy theories and they let you know it.
Lakey

 

[Veda]

Blue, It sounds intriguing, I will check it our. If Zinj and Veda read about this then get ready for a fight, a real brawl. They do not take kindly to conspiracy theories and they let you know it.
Lakey

Not so. I have no problem with the idea that there are, and have been, conspiracies. I even still have my autographed hardbound copy of Gary Allen's 'None Dare Call it Conspiracy', along with many other books on the subject of conspiracy.

However, the above link is about 30% fact, and 70 percent coo coo for coco puffs.

Scientology itself is based on the template of a criminal conspiracy, and has been for a long time.

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=122173&postcount=16

So please don't place me in the camp of those who knee-jerkedly reject the idea that conspiracies have existed and do exist. That's not my view.

I just noticed that the above link ends with another link to the e-book, 'Brainwashing Manual Parallels'. Just to clarify a possible misunderstanding. That e-book is about a 64 page manual and its parallels in L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology. It does not assert that Scientology = "brainwashing." (It's not that simple.) The term "brainwashing" is a slang term, and is used here only because Hubbard himself used it.

 

[lkwdblds]

Excellent point about having to KSW something without seeing the research

No question. It was also easy to see things that worked once on me worked (for me). However, there was no codified research that anyone could examine, even under some kind of non-disclosure. You shouldn't have to buy in for that, and Scn does require buy-in. Sorry, that's not scientific.

So it was easy for me to see that something worked for me, but impossible (for me) to get to the KSW point of knowing it was correct in a larger sense.

Excellent point about applying KSW to something when all you know is that it has worked many times when applied only to you. No research manuals are available for study and you are not allowed to access the pc folders of others to try and establish an empirical proof that it works equally well on everybody.
Perhaps auditors and FESers (those who do Folder Error Summaries) would be more likely to have enough certainty to do as KSW says to do.

You are undoubtedly appealed to to do KSW before you ever receive any auditing services. Can you imagine telling C of S execs that you can not in good conscience execute KSW #1 until you at least have some wins having the tech run on you. You would probably go immediately to the RPF if you were Sea Org.
Lakey

 

[Enthetan]

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 scientist tries to create a solid theory as to WHY something works. The engineer is mainly interested in WHETHER something works, and what percentage of the time it works. The early Briefing Course days, from what I've read here from people who were there, was a period of development and refinement of workable technique.

I've used the techniques to achieve results that PCs were happy with. Whether the theoretical underpinnings were sound was of secondary importance to me.

 

[lkwdblds]

Clarifying the point I made.

Allegory? You lost me on that one. Care to clarify?

As for DM, he obviously had a different "why." One of his first actions was to get rid of all the early innovators. I believe had I been in that position I would have given them long overdue praise and recognition thus inviting further contribution.

But what do I know being the SP squirrel that I am.

I think you are correct in your last paragraph. The difficulty in communicating beliefs openly and candidly is that beliefs are very close to home for the being. Any invalidation of belief tends to carry over as an invalidation of the being. It is my contention that to be OT (an accomplished being) a person has to get over the inval and eval buttons. But that is another subject for discussion later.

Its funny, I wrote out longhand what I meant originally but felt my post was too verbose. I decided to eliminate the explanation, feeling that if I used the word allegory and stress that the birthdate of the person was a factor then I could eliminate the longhand and long winded explanation.

Sinek has 5 categories of people 2.5% Unnovators, 13.5% Early Adapters, 34% Early Majority, 34% late Majority, and 16% Laggards. You were suggesting that those who joined with LRH in the early 50's correstponded to the Innovators.

.......................took a break to handle a phone call and then resumed.................

Those who joined in the mid 50's and stayed until 1964 correstpond to early adapters, those who followed and stayed in through the 70's correspond to the early majority, Those who entered in the 80's and 90's correspond to the late majority and the ones who entered in the 2,000's are the laggards.

My point is that in actual fact, those who joined in the early 1950's had to be composed of all 5 classes; they could not have possibly all been innovators. I agree with your analysis if what you mean is that there was a preponderance of innovators who joined in the early 1950's. Perhaps instead of only 2 1/2 percent, they respresented 20% of that first batch of Scientologist, perhaps instead of 16% laggards, there were only 4% laggards in that early batch of Scientologist.

The same type of comment applies to the 2nd period, 1955 to 1964, you would find that most of the innovators were still in and there would be a greater than expected number of early adapters and fewer than expected laggards and so forth through all the various time periods. IF THIS IS WHAT YOU MEAN, THEN I AGREE WITH YOU.

On the other hand, if you are classing all who joined in the early 1950's as Innovators, All who joined in 1955-64 as early adapters, All who joined during the 70's as early Majority and so forth then I do not agree.

In this latter case, I use as an example a truly great Innovator born in 1970, well within the top 2 1/2% of the potential leaders on Earth. The guy is an Innovator through and through but he could not have joined in the early 1950's because he wasn't born yet. In actual fact, he first discovered Scientology in 1991 at age 21. He joined and as per your post he would be classified as a Late Majority when in fact he should be classified as an Innovator even though he entered Scientology in 1991. I just did not know which way to take your post. One way I agree with but the other way I don't. I hope this fully clarifies it for you.
Lakey

 

[Ted]

Its funny, I wrote out longhand what I meant originally but felt my post was too verbose. I decided to eliminate the explanation, feeling that if I used the word allegory and stress that the birthdate of the person was a factor then I could eliminate the longhand and long winded explanation.

Sinek has 5 categories of people 2.5% Unnovators, 13.5% Early Adapters, 34% Early Majority, 34% late Majority, and 16% Laggards. You were suggesting that those who joined with LRH in the early 50's correstponded to the Innovators

Sorry. Call me dense. I fail to see any relevance in birthdate. :confused2:

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

Sidebar

I started this out as a “Readers Digest” Treatment of Admin Tech and I’m gonna stick to that. Tech “Tech” is another issue. Where Tech “Tech” fits into my treatment I’ll sum up like this:

We are all here at this moment in time discussing what we are discussing with whom we are discussing it for one fundamental reason only—we were all “practicing Scientologists”. Whether or not the “tech” is valid to one degree or another, whether or not El Ron was “Source” or not or what was Hisself “Source” of and not “Source” of, whether or not the “Tech” works to one degree or another and how or what needs to be applied in what way is a separate matter from the organizational, administrative and corporate “story”.

I’m not looking at the “Red Tech” as the “driver”; I’m trying to work through the Organizational, Management and Corporate El Ron “Tech” and actions—whether Hisself was the “Source” of Scn or the “Source” of a better mouse trap, regardless of whether El Ron “stole” Scn or “stole” the plans to a better mouse trap.

A mouse trap business that, had it not been a “Religion”, would have been shut down long ago by fraud, SEC Law, product liability, RICCO, embezzlement, income tax evasion, etc., etc., litigation. I’m looking at motivations and the “drivers” to build the whole damn thing as it was—and still is—in the first place.

We can—and should—debate the efficacy of the Scientific method and Empirical Method; we can—and should—debate what works what doesn’t work, why it works or why it doesn’t work. Man, that’s good a good thing to do and we need to continue to do it. I have gained so, so much from reading this board and everything else out there—whether it’s pro, con, conspiracy, ‘My Story”, “Their Story”, on and on. And, bluntly, these are debates that El Ron never wanted us to have. El Ron would never, never, never had allowed anyone to debate any part of Scn with Hisself at any time—unless it was some idle “banter” with a supplicant that El Ron could dust off with a gesture or look, or “shut down” at any time with a, “well you need to find your MU or ah, now see, your bank is kicking in on the very words I’m saying…you need much more processing on that.”

I was not a “big time” Tech guy…I did some auditing and got a lot of auditing (some "Flag Only" stuff). I read the books probably at least 7 or 8 times each. I’ve listened to the PDC at least 3 times plus about 250 of the other early “tech” tapes at least once. I’ve done lots of clay demos on the axioms, factors, arc, tone scale, comm cycle, etc., etc.

I was primarily an Admin guy…a “Green Tech” guy…and I was very highly trained, experienced, proven and posted. Like some of you ‘Red Tech” guys I’ve done a whole bunch of studying, learning and applying my "Tech" stuff (Admin) for over 20 years post Scn. I’m not putting myself out there as some “guru” but I have been there, done it and made some real good dough from consistent and excellent results from what I’ve learned, know and can do--and I sure as hell don't owe it all to El Ron or Scn as a lot of Hisself's bunk got in my way off and on. I gots to tell you Kids, El Ron “knew” some admin stuff but man, oh man, was it bastardized and booby trapped, and Hisself sure didn’t “know it all”—not by a damn sight.

What led me to walk away was that incrementally and incessantly I could not reconcile El Ron’s actions, deeds and “Green Tech” with what I knew of Scn, what I knew as a human being and what I had learned in school, from books and from life. And, that led me to begin to question the “Red Tech” in earnest and just what in the hell I was doing there in the first place.

I appreciate this board and all of you…I’m getting a chance to “get off my chest” stuff that’s been there too long and I’m learning from all of your viewpoints.

Okay, Lakey…I’ll do the “elaboration” thing in a day or so.

Face

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Need a coauthor?

I’ve been trying find the time to follow up my post recently regarding some thoughts stimulated by a comment by Blue Spirit…unfortunately

I’m afraid the response will nearly be a treatise if I ever find the time to do it and, unfortunately, no one will pay enough for me to spend the time to do the "fullblown" version.

So I’m gonna dribble out a "Readers Digest" version over time so there may be some “sweeping” statements on my part that, over time, I will attempt to substantiate my reasoning (Man I can be pedantic sometimes, can’t I?).

-snip-

"My premise is all that “edifice” above is the artifact of El Ron’s desperate solutions to a horrid continuing PTP—“How do I continue to keep getting all the money and admiration I want for something stole, continue to steal, lied about and can't actually personally do without being found out or going to jail?” And yes, I’ll agree that El Ron was absolutely brilliant."

Here’s how I see it…it’s gonna take me a few posts to get there:

Anyone that has read, at the very least, Deming and Drucker knows that many of El Ron’s “Admin Tech Breakthroughs” were rehashed, reworked and “squirreled" concepts from the work of others. Although El Ron had to go wholetrack to come up with the “Qual” concept, Deming was apparently able to come up with it over a decade before El Ron and nowhere in his works is any credit given to the Confederacy. “Management by statistics” was new and revolutionary to us neophytes but was an established subject and practice long before El Ron “discovered” it. El Ron “tailored” the subject for Hisself’s Empire and the generalized over simplifications and their emphasis that El Ron rendered had, in my opinion, a deleterious effect in application—as did a significant amount of the OEC/FEBC Model.

The OEC Model is fundamentally flawed for a number of reasons of which two major ones are:

It is a massive Monolithic Command and Control Organization system and MCCO’s are terrible models for Personal Service Organizations. There are innumerable reasons why this is so, however, one of the “biggies” is that MCCO’s are oppressive of individuals and independent expression and thought. It all looked good in print, sounded wonderful in theory but the actuality was an absolute Cluster F in practice. Take the concept of staff member reports; it was a bastardization of the "Standard" MCCO Model and an homage to Himmler. All chits roll down hill, people can get all messed up and have chit fits, every ones chits stink, and when you’re the Interested Party at a Comm Ev your Fans hit you with the Chits.

El Ron loved to talk about “not acting on a single report”—a well established datum in all MCCO Models throughout the 20th Century (such as the US Navy..unless under fire). However, El Ron continually acted on single reports from sources that were questionable. Through all the OEC Vols there is one after another of systems hardwired in that ensure that the MCCO El Ron “thunked up” stifles independent and creative thought and action and provides numerous ways to “tool the system”.

I knew MSH personally. I am convinced that a large section of Vol 3 and Vol 4 policy came from her. I personally have experienced (as I explained earlier in this thread) El Ron taking my written detailed explanation of how to do a difficult new position to a high standard of production with excellent products. El Ron bastardized my write-up and issued it as an HCOPL. The thrust of El Ron’s editing was to remove any vestige of the predominant concepts of my write up—which had been made by using references, extrapolations and passages from Hisself’s own works, i.e.: 1. Never sacrifice long term viable valuable products for short term upstats; 2. Taking the time to understand the viewpoint of another and truly enlightening them in terms of their own reality fosters and channels their own willingess, yielding greater viable production over time. The post of which I speak was a new one that, after I had piloted it and written up how to do it with effective results, El Ron added to all the Service Org’s Org Boards—with Hisself’s HCOPL as the Admin “Tech” of how to do it. That experience was one of a number of things that festered in my “craw” and lead to my eventually walking away.

As time went forward El Ron added on top of his MCCO Model a Rube Goldberg series of whistle’s and bells like the Flag Rep Network, the FBO Network, etc. But his ne plus ultra add on “tech” was the vaunted FEBC with the Production Officer/Organizing Officer System, which was later “reconciled” with his other “Breakthrough” the Establishment Officer System.

The net effect of the FEBC system was to inject “Steroids” into an inherently flawed MCCO Model. The name of that “Steroid” was ACT—Artificially Compressed Time.

I’m gonna end off here for now and pick things up in a day or so and for anyone that feels that. “Not everything in the Admin 'Tech' is wrong or bad"…I agree. I’ve got a few thoughts regarding that also that I’ll cover later.

Facey, I keep telling you to write a book about your observations of your time in Scientology... I will help you find a publisher. Seriously.

 

[thetanic]

Excellent point about applying KSW to something when all you know is that it has worked many times when applied only to you. No research manuals are available for study and you are not allowed to access the pc folders of others to try and establish an empirical proof that it works equally well on everybody.
Perhaps auditors and FESers (those who do Folder Error Summaries) would be more likely to have enough certainty to do as KSW says to do.

You are undoubtedly appealed to to do KSW before you ever receive any auditing services. Can you imagine telling C of S execs that you can not in good conscience execute KSW #1 until you at least have some wins having the tech run on you. You would probably go immediately to the RPF if you were Sea Org.

Thanks for hearing me out on this point -- I was trying to tell a Scn (but out of the CofS) friend of mine that I had issues with KSW, and I got cut off before I could explain.

I'm sure auditors, C/Ses, and especially FESers would have a better perspective, but it's many hundreds of hours to get to any level of experience that would allow one to "know" via this kind of experience. Further, there's no kind of comparison with other processes to demonstrate that Scn's are more effective, nor is there a known framework for formulating such inquiries.

Enthetan's right about scientists vs. engineers, and Scn is far closer to an engineering perspective than a scientist's perspective. My father used to use "engineers" as a cuss word.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Sounds Yummy!

Pies?

Pies?

Did you say Pies?

Nobody in this world knows ANYTHING about pies until they've visited New Zealand. Period.

And then only if they've been to Springfield and bought a pie from the bakery there.

How about Fed Exing us a couple and Lakey and I will taste test them, for a comparison with Knotts???

When I was a little girl, the first thing I learned to bake was pies...must be a Mennonite thing...

 

[Leon]

Our pies are full of MEAT. Those vegetarian pies you guys do are strictly for the Southern California arty-fashion set.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re:Continuation of my Post

Sorry. Call me dense. I fail to see any relevance in birthdate. :confused2:

Ted, I was writing a clarification to your earlier question when an emergncy call came in. Instead of saving my incomplete reply, I decided hit submit and save it in incomplete form and then finish it up when I got off the phone. I never dreamed you would read it so quickly so now I am going to finish it. I will take it the post up from point I left off when my phone rang. Rather than do it here, I will completed the earlier page that I started.

PLEASE BACK UP TO MY POST #2412 WHERE I MAKE MY FULL CLARIFICATION.
Lakey

 

[Ted]

Its funny, I wrote out longhand what I meant originally but felt my post was too verbose. I decided to eliminate the explanation, feeling that if I used the word allegory and stress that the birthdate of the person was a factor then I could eliminate the longhand and long winded explanation.

Sinek has 5 categories of people 2.5% Unnovators, 13.5% Early Adapters, 34% Early Majority, 34% late Majority, and 16% Laggards. You were suggesting that those who joined with LRH in the early 50's correstponded to the Innovators.

.......................took a break to handle a phone call and then resumed.................

Those who joined in the mid 50's and stayed until 1964 correstpond to early adapters, those who followed and stayed in through the 70's correspond to the early majority, Those who entered in the 80's and 90's correspond to the late majority and the ones who entered in the 2,000's are the laggards.

My point is that in actual fact, those who joined in the early 1950's had to be composed of all 5 classes; they could not have possibly all been innovators. I agree with your analysis if what you mean is that there was a preponderance of innovators who joined in the early 1950's. Perhaps instead of only 2 1/2 percent, they respresented 20% of that first batch of Scientologist, perhaps instead of 16% laggards, there were only 4% laggards in that early batch of Scientologist.

The same type of comment applies to the 2nd period, 1955 to 1964, you would find that most of the innovators were still in and there would be a greater than expected number of early adapters and fewer than expected laggards and so forth through all the various time periods. IF THIS IS WHAT YOU MEAN, THEN I AGREE WITH YOU.

On the other hand, if you are classing all who joined in the early 1950's as Innovators, All who joined in 1955-64 as early adapters, All who joined during the 70's as early Majority and so forth then I do not agree.

In this latter case, I use as an example a truly great Innovator born in 1970, well within the top 2 1/2% of the potential leaders on Earth. The guy is an Innovator through and through but he could not have joined in the early 1950's because he wasn't born yet. In actual fact, he first discovered Scientology in 1991 at age 21. He joined and as per your post he would be classified as a Late Majority when in fact he should be classified as an Innovator even though he entered Scientology in 1991. I just did not know which way to take your post. One way I agree with but the other way I don't. I hope this fully clarifies it for you.
Lakey

I see. It looks like you might be over-thinking what I meant. I am not that complicated.

I am looking at the subject first then supposing the flow into and through as it might relate to the video. I am saying that by 1965 most if not all innovators were being rejected. Innovators, dilettantes, serious students and pc's, although not of the innovator class, and so on, would comprise the total body of people coming through initially and thereafter. After 1965 innovators would be fewer and fewer simply because they would not fit the changing mold. Example: Werner Erhard innovated. He did some training and moved on. His div 6 work with est was phenomenal. And he pulled a lot of people in with altered scientology processes.

Today the scientology organizations seem to be run by kids. All the old folks are gone or suppressed out of visibility. These are the laggards. The FZ and other techs now have the innovators.

Today I was watching a video where some people are healing through the morphic field. I see this as scientology's axiom 1. I have always used the morphic field in helping another being. I take what these people are talking about as yet more applications of scientology, if you can imaging looking at it in that manner. The difference is there is no L. Ron Hubbard in their equation or range of perception.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GK-Vq6IVPI4&feature=related