the Tone Scale is Stupid. Moronically stupid.

Kha Khan

Patron Meritorious
I saw a thread on sympathy, which I think is quite good. But I wanted to address the broader subject of the Tone Scale. I wanted to share an insight.

The Tone scale is stupid. Moronically stupid. And the reasoning Scientologists (current and er, um, ah "ex") use to justify their acceptance of the Tone Scale demonstrates much that is wrong with Scientology.

There is the Tone Scale:
40.0 Serenity of beingness
30.0 Postulates
22.0 Games
20.0 Action
8.0 Exhilaration
6.0 Aesthetic
4.0 Enthusiasm
3.5 Cheerfulness
3.3 Strong interest
3.0 Conservatism
2.9 Mild interest
2.8 Contented
2.6 Disinterested
2.5 Boredom
2.4 Monotony
2.2 Depression
2.0 Antagonism
1.9 Hostility
1.8 Pain
1.5 Anger
1.4 Hate
1.3 Resentment
1.2 No sympathy
1.15 Unexpressed resentment
1.1 Covert hostility
1.02 Anxiety
1.0 Fear
0.98 Despair
0.96 Terror
0.94 Numb
0.9 Sympathy
0.8 Propitiation
0.5 Grief
0.375 Making amends
0.3 Undeserving
0.2 Self-abasement
0.1 Victim
0.07 Hopeless
0.05 Apathy
0.03 Useless
0.01 Dying
0.0 Body death
- 0.01 Pity
- 0.02 Shame
- 0.07 Accountable
- 1.0 Blame
- 1.3 Regret
- 1.5 Controlling bodies
- 2.2 Protecting bodies
- 3.0 Owning bodies
- 3.5 Approval from bodies
- 4.0 Needing bodies
- 5.0 Worshipping bodies
- 6.0 Sacrifice
- 8.0 Hiding
-10.0 Being objects
-20.0 Being nothing
-30.0 Can't hide
-40.0 Total failure
It is difficult for me to express my utter contempt for the idea that this is anything but unadulterated B.S. Where do I begin?

First, the idea that "higher" "tones" are always better than "lower" "tones." So (not surprisingly, consistent with Hubbard's amoral and psychopathic personality and values):

1.5 Anger
1.4 Hate
1.3 Resentment
1.2 No sympathy
1.15 Unexpressed resentment
1.1 Covert hostility

Are always, regardless of the circumstances, "higher toned" -- and thus "better" -- than:

0.9 Sympathy
0.8 Propitiation
0.5 Grief
0.375 Making amends
0.3 Undeserving

Really? So, your wife tells you that that the mother she loved dearly just died. It would be "higher toned" -- i.e., better -- to feel and express Anger, Hate or Resentment than, heaven forbid, Sympathy?

[Now some would say no, Kha Khan, you should match her tone of Grief to better communicate with her, and then move her up to something better, like, well, Hate. Because Hate is higher toned, and better, than Grief. And, to anticipate an issue discussed below, the only way to go from 0.5 Grief to 2.8 Contented is through 1.4 Hate. The transition from Grief to Contentment requires Hate.]

Say you screwed up -- e.g., made a business mistake or, worse, did something morally wrong. Cost your employer $500,000. Cheated on your wife. Might the appropriate response be to 0.375 make amends, or even even be in 0.8 Propitiation? Dude, you farked up! Oh no, it would again be much "higher toned," better, healthier to express... Anger, Hate or Resentment? WTF?

On consider:

2.6 Disinterested
2.5 Boredom
2.4 Monotony
2.2 Depression
2.0 Antagonism
1.9 Hostility

Somebody has just punched you in the face, knocked you to the ground, pulled a knife and threatened to cut your heart out. Under these circumstances it is "higher toned" to be disinterested, bored or depressed than antagonistic or hostile. Me, I'm going to be antagonistic and hostile and shove that knife up his.... You can be bored or disinterested and get disemboweled.

Then there is the stupid idea that one always goes through these levels in this precise order. [See discussion of 0.5 Grief to 2.8 Contented through 1.4 Hate above]. Consider the supposed transition up from:

0.8 Propitiation
0.9 Sympathy
0.94 Numb
0.98 Despair
0.96 Terror
to 1.0 Fear

Being in 0.8 Propitiation assumes you are in an inferior relationship to another person, organization, process, etc. You would hardly be in Propitiation if you were in a superior position. But 0.9 Sympathy assumes you are in the superior or advantageous position; you aren't hurting, it is the other person who is hurting. But at at 0.98 Despair, 0.96 Terror and 1.0 Fear one is obviously again in the inferior position. So let's see, the transition is from an inferior position (0.8 Propitiation) to a superior position (0.9 Sympathy) back to inferior positions (0.98 Despair, 0.96 Terror and 1.0 Fear).

Far more importantly, it is always the case that the transition is from an inferior position (0.8 Propitiation) to a superior position (0.9 Sympathy) back to inferior positions (0.98 Despair, 0.96 Terror and 1.0 Fear). Why?

Or consider:

1.3 Resentment
1.2 No sympathy
1.15 Unexpressed resentment

Why would No sympathy always come between Resentment and Unexpressed resentment? It doesn't for me. For me it goes from "No sympathy," to thinking to myself -- "Hey, what the Fark? I'm not sure I like this -- but not expressing it -- to expressing -- "Hey, what the Fark! I damn well don't like this!

Worse is the "reasoning" by which we accepted this crap. Basically, think of one or two examples in which what Ron said might be valid or true, and then conclude that it is always valid and true. Consider:

0.5 Grief
0.375 Making amends

Why would "Making amends" always be before Grief going up the Tone Scale? Sometimes, maybe, yes -- you did something wrong, make amends and then feel grief. [But, for me, in the situation where I did something wrong the grief would come first, which would cause me to want to make amends. Making amends would be higher on the Tone Scale than Grief.] But other times, almost certainly no. If something was done to me and I suffered a loss as a result, then I may feel grief, but I sure as hell am not feeling a need to "make amends" before or after feeling the grief.

The idea that the Tone Scale is always linear, always in that order. Jeesh.

Why did we believe that crap?

Initially because the idea of it was attractive -- it makes the world neat, orderly, tidy, predictable. Because Hubbard said so. Because we didn't want to lose our friends, families. Because after investing X number of dollars and Y number of years, it is hard to admit that, "Oh jeesh, one of the very first things I was taught is, now that I look at it critically, pretty much stupid."

Finally, to return again to an earlier example, maybe for a Scientologist the transition from Grief to Contentment requires passing through Hate. But, FWIW, I've known Buddhists and Christians where the passage from Grief to Contentment did not require passing through Hate.

Perhaps the Tone Scale -- and the included requirement that the transition from from Grief to Contentment requires passing through Hate -- says more about Ron, Scientology -- and us -- than it does about humans generally.
 
Last edited:

Goodbye

Patron with Honors
The Tone Scale is easily observable to me. And that's all it is ... observation and comment on emotional states. Really very little complicated about it.
 

Kha Khan

Patron Meritorious
Any more? :melodramatic:
Since you asked so nicely, yes.

As I was drafting my OP, I realized that the take away was that, according to the Tone Scale, the only way to go from 0.5 Grief to 2.8 Contented is through 1.4 Hate. The transition from Grief to Contentment requires Hate.

As I also said, maybe for a Scientologist the transition from Grief to Contentment requires passing through Hate. But, I've known Buddhists and Christians where the passage from Grief to Contentment did not require passing through Hate.

Perhaps the Tone Scale -- and the included requirement that the transition from from Grief to Contentment requires passing through Hate -- says more about Ron, Scientology -- and us -- than it does about humans generally.

So, yeah, I could have made my OP shorter. For me it was a matter of "writing out loud," so please forgive me.

Or maybe, just maybe, you could pass from 1.2 No sympathy or 1.3 Resentment to 2.8 Contented without passing through 1.4 Hate and 1.5 Anger? :flowers:
 

Kha Khan

Patron Meritorious
The Tone Scale is easily observable to me. And that's all it is ... observation and comment on emotional states. Really very little complicated about it.
If all the tone scale meant or required was to pay attention to the emotional state of others, and to guage one's communication accordingly. I would agree.

But that, of course, is not all that it says or requires. It is linear. It says that individuals always pass through the listed levels in order, all of the time. I call B.S.

And the fact that it it says that the transition from 0.5 Grief to 2.8 Contentment always requires passing through 1.4 Hate and 1.5 Anger is simply not true for some Buddhists, Christians and others I've known. And hopefully not for me any longer.

YMMV, of course.
 

Goodbye

Patron with Honors
If all the tone scale meant or required was to pay attention to the emotional state of others, and to guage one's communication accordingly. I would agree.
Its first and foremost a tool in auditing, and another indicator that has bearing on running, or ceasing to run a process.

I have the Tone Scale down so innate, I don't even think about it.

But that, of course, is not all that it says or requires. It is linear. It says that individuals always pass through the listed levels in order, all of the time. I call B.S.

And the fact that it it says that the transition from 0.5 Grief to 2.8 Contentment always requires passing through 1.4 Hate and 1.5 Anger is simply not true for some Buddhists, Christians and others I've known. And hopefully not for me any longer.
As long as you know where up and down is, one kinda passes through, and may not exhibit incremental stops that are easily visible. A person on his deathbed could be informed that his cancer went into permanent remission and may shoot up to exhilaration in a flash. I don't get into too much significance on it, I see it and direct the process on that basis.
 

Kha Khan

Patron Meritorious
I have the Tone Scale down so innate, I don't even think about it.
That is the problem.

So when the PC (perhaps slowly, perhaps gradually) transitions from 0.5 Grief to being 2.8 Contented, without expressing or evidencing in any way 1.4 Hate or 1.5 Anger along the way, that indicates what, precisely?

That the PC really did feel 1.4 Hate and 1.5 Anger along the way even though he doesn't believe he did, feel he did, express that he did, or manifest in any way that he did?

That the PC must have felt 1.4 Hate and 1.5 Anger along the way?

That the PC should have felt 1.4 Hate and 1.5 Anger along the way? (But that would be an evaluation in violation of the Auditor's Code, wouldn't it?)

(Because the theory says so? Because Ron said so? Because you say so?)

Or that the Tone Scale is, well, wrong?

Poor deluded Buddhists who think they can move from Grief to being Contented without passing through Hate and Anger

Obviously, they require Scientology training or processing to the obtain the Tone of Hate and Anger they so clearly require.
 

Kha Khan

Patron Meritorious
As long as you know where up and down is, one kinda passes through, and may not exhibit incremental stops that are easily visible. A person on his deathbed could be informed that his cancer went into permanent remission and may shoot up to exhilaration in a flash. I don't get into too much significance on it, I see it and direct the process on that basis.
So what Ron taught -- that a person always goes through the steps in order -- is at best a non-falsifiable hypothesis. Anytime one transitions from 0.5 Grief to 2.8 Contented without actually manifesting 1.4 Hate or 1.5 Anger, we just assume they shot up too fast to actually detect the intermediate states of Hate and Anger. How convenient.

And the evidence that 1.4 Hate and 1.5 Anger are always above 0.5 Grief is?

So no person has first felt Hate and Anger, and then Grief, and then Contentment?

So no person has first felt 2.2 Depression (because he just lost his job) and then 1.4 Hate and 1.5 Anger (because he cognited that he was fired without justification), and then felt 2.8 Contented (because he cognited that because he was fired without justification he really was and is qualified, and will easily get another job). Never happens. Never happened. Impossible.
 

Goodbye

Patron with Honors
So when the PC (perhaps slowly, perhaps gradually) transitions from 0.5 Grief to being 2.8 Contented, without expressing or evidencing in any way 1.4 Hate or 1.5 Anger along the way, that indicates what, precisely?
Like I said, it often flashes through in a jiffy and the individual static emotional states may not exist. The Tone Scale is rather fluid, or shall we say analog. The next instance the PC is observed to be in a somewhat recognizable and somewhat static emotional state ... that'll do for processing.

A good auditor should be able to peg the PC's Tone at least once a Second, but then that my arbitrary.

You are still asking the same questions I have already responded to. You are reading way too much into this.
 

RogerB

Crusader
Quite Emotional Here . . . .

Kha Khan,

I see some quite heartfelt emotions expressed here in your write ups on this thread.

Maybe, you could use the process Alan gave to Alanzo some while back, and "describe your mood level" concerning this subject . . . and the process is to "describe," not just name it/them.

Alternatively, you could articulate the mood levels/emotions you experienced while addressing this subject and writing your pieces. :yes:

Hubbard's dissertation on the emotional tone scale was a good effort, though not complete nor completely accurate. If you go to his material (lectures and write-ups) on it, you'll see that it came out of his observations of what PC's go through at to mood changes while being processed.

It is rather obvious in life that folks do span a spectrum of moods/emotions in their relatings to the game.

I know of nowhere that Hubbard said you "have to or must or do" go through each level (as noted on the scale) when you are going up and/or down the scale. One can and does bounce.

You see, Hubbard missed the fact that, as Beings involved in a game, we are exercising both outflow and inflow vectors of life-force or attention. That is, sometimes we are causative and outflowing, and sometimes inflowing, receiving.

These flows each express differently as to mood or emotion. Hubbard missed that.

Hence his "Tone Scale" is not precisely accurate, and can be confusing. Though it is none-the-less useful and workable.

I'm off now to an appointment . . . maybe more later.

Rog
 

Tiger Lily

Gold Meritorious Patron
Kha Khan THANK YOU for this thread!!! :thumbsup:

The tone scale was something I could never make sense of completely. Some of it makes great sense and I was very attracted to it at first, and then frustration set in because I couldn't conceptualize it all -- and for a lot of the reasons that you delineated in your OP (and no it wasn't too long -- it was greatl in fact I got some great belly-laughs (line charge) out of it).

Roger your thoughts about flows actually helped me a bunch. I hope you do post more.

Anybody have any thoughts about tones below and above the body? I never got that. Why are these tones below body death, for example:

- 0.01 Pity
- 0.02 Shame
- 0.07 Accountable
- 1.0 Blame
- 1.3 Regret
- 1.5 Controlling bodies
- 2.2 Protecting bodies
- 3.0 Owning bodies
- 3.5 Approval from bodies
- 4.0 Needing bodies
- 5.0 Worshipping bodies

Oh jeez, I'm getting all keyed in again. . . .I hated this so much. :angry: I think I'll go describe my mood level for a few minutes . . .

:pullhair:TL
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
The scale was developed observing auditing sessions

I recall reading in the earlier books on Dianetics that LRH discovered the tone scale, in a much more simplified form, by running people through engrams or secondary engrams where the person was in a state of reverie and was making passes through actual instances of pain and unconsciousness or loss which he had experienced earlier and which were filed in his reactive mind and were not available to his analytical mind until after the session had made them so.

As to the emotional states themselves, LRH said repeatedly that emotions which were appropriate to the circumstances were sane emotions, such as feeling sadness at the death of a pet while emotions which were inappropriate, such as arriving home, seeing that your house was on fire and going into enthusiasm were called misemotion and were aberrated.

As far as bouncing around between emotions as opposed to having to go through each emotion on your way up and your way down, my take on it is that when addressing an engram in an auditing session going through each emotion will always be the case. In living life, if it applies 100% that would be for the lower tones only.

I believe a high toned being 4.0 or above could decided to bounce from enthusiasm to aesthetics to action, cut down to exhillaration shoot up to games and so forth as his mood inspires him.

I'll tell you one thing. I audited on the Dianetic Intership and the NED Internship and completed the latter and one thing that worked for me 100% was that if a pc was very down toned, he would always pass through anger on his way up. I also used this data when having an argument with someone or when dealing with someone who was threatening to get violent. As we communicated, the person would sooner or later begin to get angry and rather than panic, I always felt relief because I knew that the person was on the verge of reaching boredom and would soon calm down. This never once failed to happen in my real life experiences! I've applied this hundreds of times.

In my experience, the tone scale always made sense to me, I felt I had a conceptual understanding of it, and I've used it successfully over and over.
I am not invalidating people who think the tone scale is phoney, I just wanted to pass on my personal observations and experiences using it.
lkwdblds
 

olska

Silver Meritorious Patron
<snip>...the reasoning Scientologists (current and er, um, ah "ex") use to justify their acceptance of the Tone Scale demonstrates much that is wrong with Scientology.

I agree, and the intellectual acrobatics of people determined to assure themselves that LRH was "right" are amazing and often amusing.

First, the idea that "higher" "tones" are always better than "lower" "tones."

I think this idea is not limited to scientology, but wherever it's found it tends to make people suppress their emotions. A similar can be found in "wog" culture with the "boys don't cry" and "girls don't get angry" customs.

In particular I think grief and anger so suppressed eventually can explode, and one feels that once they start, they might never be able to stop crying, for example.

The idea that the Tone Scale is always linear, always in that order. Jeesh.

Right on. Rather than the linear model, I believe emotional experience is better illustrated (though even that is only an illustration, not necessarily "truth") with a radial, or spherical, diagram. One is in the "center" of possibility of ALL emotions. Rather than having to go "through" any emotion to reach another, one "picks" from all those choices, instant by instant. And can experience more than one at the same time.

The ETHICS CONDITIONS are another example of LRH's "linear" thinking which is, in my opinion and observation, not at all how life actually works. Within the "conditions formulas" are, I think, some useful exercises when applied to life and/or business; however, the "loaded" labels for the "lower conditions" are not helpful. And I think one can pick the formula that "indicates" in the moment, use it, and be DONE without having to "work through" all the other formulas.

Why did we believe that crap?

Initially because the idea of it was attractive -- it makes the world neat, orderly, tidy, predictable.

Yes, the "neat, orderly, tidy, and predictable" is probably the primary draw. Life can be overwhelming to many, in many ways. How wonderful to have a simple "formula" handy to sort it all out! Very much like the latest greatest fad weight loss program that promises you can eat any and everything you want and still lose weight!

Thanks for starting this discussion!
 

EP - Ethics Particle

Gold Meritorious Patron
Something anyone can know and use...

...snip...

I'll tell you one thing. I audited on the Dianetic Intership and the NED Internship and completed the latter and one thing that worked for me 100% was that if a pc was very down toned, he would always pass through anger on his way up. I also used this data when having an argument with someone or when dealing with someone who was threatening to get violent. As we communicated, the person would sooner or later begin to get angry and rather than panic, I always felt relief because I knew that the person was on the verge of reaching boredom and would soon calm down. This never once failed to happen in my real life experiences! I've applied this hundreds of times.

In my experience, the tone scale always made sense to me, I felt I had a conceptual understanding of it, and I've used it successfully over and over.
I am not invalidating people who think the tone scale is phoney, I just wanted to pass on my personal observations and experiences using it.
lkwdblds

Your observation and experience is consistent with mine - particularly and most applicably in the area of dealing with anger.

I took the liberty of highlighting that one portion of your post and would like to suggest than anyone, knowing that little simple thing, can deal with another's (and perhaps one's own) anger much better and more effectively.

An angry person is almost impossible to really communicate with, however - you just sorta have to let them "run down" in my experience. The key thing to me, out here in the wider society, is to avoid getting angry yourself in return.:wink2: :yes:

(Note - I agree with your entire post, BTY.)

EP
 
Kha Khan and Olska,
you have both hit it right on the nail. And let's not forget that Hubbard has coated the tone scale with mathematics to make it look scientific. People have emotions. But some people who have been carefully indoctrinated into Hubbard's view of things, consciously or unconsciously, see any emotions as proof that Hubbard was right.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
Last edited:

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
What's Wrong With The Tone Scale

Not to disagree with anything already stated, but, here are the 3 primary problems I see with the Tone Scale:

1) It's Arbitrary. It reflects both Ron's *own* biases and preferences, but, *also* the biases and preferences he wanted to install in his 'supermen'.

2) It's 'loaded'. The 'position' on the Tone Scale isn't the only tendentious element. *Also*, each category, according to Ron, implies *other* qualities which are *not* in evidence. For example; someone below '2.0' has bad breath. The fun part of this is that it makes it easier to 'rank' people and 'discover' their Tone Level on an *additional* arbitrary level.

3) The sheer *existence* of the 'Tone Scale' implies an element of scientific rigour to Scientology that *Does Not Exist*. It's 'technical', which implies actual 'technology', rather than sheer bias and arbitrariness.

And yet, the 'Tone Scale' is often the last bit of 'Scientology Tech' to be abandoned by escaping Scientologists :) Which may give you some indication of how important it is to the MindFuck itself.

Zinj
 

Tiger Lily

Gold Meritorious Patron
Not to disagree with anything already stated, but, here are the 3 primary problems I see with the Tone Scale:

1) It's Arbitrary. It reflects both Ron's *own* biases and preferences, but, *also* the biases and preferences he wanted to install in his 'supermen'.

2) It's 'loaded'. The 'position' on the Tone Scale isn't the only tendentious element. *Also*, each category, according to Ron, implies *other* qualities which are *not* in evidence. For example; someone below '2.0' has bad breath. The fun part of this is that it makes it easier to 'rank' people and 'discover' their Tone Level on an *additional* arbitrary level.

3) The sheer *existence* of the 'Tone Scale' implies an element of scientific rigour to Scientology that *Does Not Exist*. It's 'technical', which implies actual 'technology', rather than sheer bias and arbitrariness.

And yet, the 'Tone Scale' is often the last bit of 'Scientology Tech' to be abandoned by escaping Scientologists :) Which may give you some indication of how important it is to the MindFuck itself.

Zinj

:goodposting: :thumbsup: :yes:
 

rich

Silver Meritorious Patron
I don't know if the tone scale is right or wrong. All I know is that after practicing training routines and mood drills(tone scale) I got ,and still get, great control of my emotions. Scientology made me much MORE able to jump from grief to content(or any other emotion) without any hate. Not less able. Kah Kahn, why don't you just do the drills? Try them in a new unit of time ? See if you find any good in them this time.
 

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
With anything of Hubbard's the question is never is it the absolute pure pristine TRUTH. The question is always and only Is it true enough, or workable enough, for one to make some good progress in getting better results than one was getting before.


This is why Scientology was only as good enough (and no better) than what you did with it. If you got results then it was that good for you. If you got no results at all then for you it was no good at all.

The subject itself is just a neutral bunch of data. What you did with that data was all that counted in the end.
 
With anything of Hubbard's the question is never is it the absolute pure pristine TRUTH. The question is always and only Is it true enough, or workable enough, for one to make some good progress in getting better results than one was getting before.


This is why Scientology was only as good enough (and no better) than what you did with it. If you got results then it was that good for you. If you got no results at all then for you it was no good at all.

The subject itself is just a neutral bunch of data. What you did with that data was all that counted in the end.

I understand your point of view, but I would disagree because as I see it the totality of data and even particular data and wins are like quantum bursts of indoctrination. It is workable in a person's eyes because he has already accepted certain premises and views which confirm the data he observes. In fact, one is geared to look for and will see the things they have already accepted. That is why outsiders and trained professionals usually do not confirm the claims of the tech. It is as much a matter of faith, though unconscious faith, as any other religion. But the unconscious acceptance of prior premises makes the tech look like it works rather than looking like a matter of faith to the indoctrinated.


The Anabaptist Jacques
 
Top