the Tone Scale is Stupid. Moronically stupid.

"Look what happens to people who most use Hubbard's stuff to run their lives. He himself went mad using it." or, if you believe the Otto Roos's story, he went mad not using it.

According to Otto, his case was a dogs breakfast (couldn't resist using Rons pet phrase) of wrong items, wrongly run processes, and then he violates his own rules, reads his own folders, and the pc fires the c/s, and spins himself in even further.

You gotta love that do as I say, not as I do streak in his personality.

Mimsey
 

Petey C

Silver Meritorious Patron
This is a great thread that was first posted before I came on Board.

What I love best about the tone scale is the minute gradations between some of the tones -- eg, 1.02, 1.05. That's so clever for anyone to observe those minute distinctions between different tones. Wow, even the word "tones" is so cool, so 60s. Just say it to yourself a few times. It helps if you lean towards the keyboard and wiggle your shoulders a bit, too.

So Kha Khan, wherever you are, I agree with your OP whole-heartedly.

PD
 

LongTimeGone

Silver Meritorious Patron
The Tone Scale in action

Here's my interpretation of the tone scale as experienced by a person who has just found out he is dying. He is a Scientologist, so he starts off enthusiastic about the whole thing and works his way down.

4.0 Enthusiasm - Oh boy oh boy I’m going to experience death.
3.5 Cheerfulness - This is going to be fun.
3.3 Strong interest - I think I’ll learn a lot now.
3.0 Conservatism - I should be more careful next time.
2.9 Mild interest - I wonder if I’ll be a man or woman next?
2.8 Contented - It doesn’t matter, I’ll be happy either way.
2.6 Disinterested - I’m not sure I want to go through School again.
2.5 Boredom - I won’t be able to do much for a while.
2.4 Monotony - The same things every day.
2.2 Depression - Oh God I’ll crap myself every five minutes.
2.0 Antagonism - I'd better not be a twin next time.
1.9 Hostility - I won’t share with the little bastard.
1.8 Pain - Ouch I can feel that slap on the arse already.
1.5 Anger - Fuck you, you heavy handed prick.
1.4 Hate - I’ll kick the shit out of you when I grow up.
1.3 Resentment - She’d better have a cesarean section
1.2 No sympathy - Who cares if it hurts her.
1.15 Unexpressed resentment - Grrrrrr
1.1 Covert hostility - I’ll make sure the nappy is nice and full for her.
1.02 Anxiety - What if I don’t come back at all?
1.0 Fear - What if I come back as an animal?
0.98 Despair - As a dog I could go to a poor home.
0.96 Terror - A cat with a little boy who hates me.
0.94 Numb - I don’t want to think about this anymore.
0.9 Sympathy - Why do I have to die now? I’ve been good!
0.8 Propitiation - Keep me alive and I'll make it up to you.
0.5 Grief - I don’t want to die!
0.375 Making amends - OK. If I come back as a human I’ll be really good.
0.3 Undeserving - What am I saying? I’m going to get a pauper’s body.
0.2 Self-abasement - I’m a piece of shit.
0.1 Victim - They should have protected me.
0.07 Hopeless - My life has been so pathetic I deserve nothing.
0.05 Apathy - Oh, who cares?
0.03 Useless - This whole bloody thing has been a waste of time.
0.01 Dying - Ouch, what was that?
0.0 Body death - Is that you mother?
- 0.01 Pity - Poor body look at it lying there.
- 0.02 Shame - How could I lose that thing so easily?
- 0.07 Accountable - I am so careless.
- 1.0 Blame - It’s my fault; all mine.
- 1.3 Regret - I shouldn’t have had all those beers.
- 1.5 Controlling bodies - Ok, let’s put them in order of desirability.
- 2.2 Protecting bodies - Nurse, nurse, keep this one warm.
- 3.0 Owning bodies = That one’s MINE. :thumbsup:
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
IMO, this is in extremely poor taste if you are not dying, or haven't experienced something like it, and are just mocking a person who is on their way out.

Perhaps I'm overly sensitive, but the joke wasn't funny for me.
 

LongTimeGone

Silver Meritorious Patron
IMO, this is in extremely poor taste if you are not dying, or haven't experienced something like it, and are just mocking a person who is on their way out.

Perhaps I'm overly sensitive, but the joke wasn't funny for me.

It's not a joke it's an explanation of the tone scale as I see it.
And yes I think you are being incredibly oversensitive.
LTG
 

Jachs

Gold Meritorious Patron
I remember when I was in how the tone scale was used to judge and label others If people agree with Scn they were "uptone" and if they rejected it they were downtone.The worse thing was to be called 1.1 Gay people were all called 1.1 then and are probably still thus labeled .The tone scale was also used to explane tech failures "He was low toned that is why processes X did'nt work".The High Tone good low tone bad thing was very common

Hubbard loathed gays, for all the damned OT whole track auditing hubbard had , he attained as much discharge in attitude with his hatred to gays as gays change into being ungay with auditing , Quentin his son was gay and committed suicide from non acceptance, from posts ive read from old timers in Scn on this forum there were lots of gays in the founding days of scientology (a hippy era- when it was ok to take their money), Hubbard implied he was the Reincarnation of Cecil Rhodes not knowing that cecil was gay.
If you check out Michael Pattison who got all that scientology has to offer in therapy and was assured throughout that he would be ungay youl see his experience on it.

What is good therapy is to realise Hubbard beamed out how right he was with opinions and claims and although he publicly appeared to be a liberated all loving buddha to suit the circumstances of the times, he rarely backed it up , and one such area was that of his dislike of gays.

Its not you , its hubbard the messiah mindset whispering in the ears of his devout.
 

xenusdad

Patron with Honors
Hubbard loathed gays, for all the damned OT whole track auditing hubbard had , he attained as much discharge in attitude with his hatred to gays as gays change into being ungay with auditing , Quentin his son was gay and committed suicide from non acceptance, from posts ive read from old timers in Scn on this forum there were lots of gays in the founding days of scientology (a hippy era- when it was ok to take their money), Hubbard implied he was the Reincarnation of Cecil Rhodes not knowing that cecil was gay.

Gay is 1.1 on the stupid tone scale and it's name is Covert Hostility. Openly gay people obviously are not behaving covertly, the tone scale begins to crumble at that point.

SPs are also 1.1 but I am openly working to destroy the cult (in it's present form) and not covert in the slightest. Again see the dumb tone scale fall down.

So if I'm not 1.1 what tone am I? None! I will experience whatever emotion comes my way and don't need some linear scale devised by a charlatan to help me.

On that note, I like helping people, in fact that is why I'm a critic of the cult. Those poor victims need to wake up.

And on that note it looks like Ireland has woken up another clam, that's 4 in the last 18 months.

:biggrin:

Oh yea, and I'm gay.
 
Last edited:

guanoloco

As-Wased
"Look what happens to people who most use Hubbard's stuff to run their lives. He himself went mad using it." or, if you believe the Otto Roos's story, he went mad not using it.

According to Otto, his case was a dogs breakfast (couldn't resist using Rons pet phrase) of wrong items, wrongly run processes, and then he violates his own rules, reads his own folders, and the pc fires the c/s, and spins himself in even further.

You gotta love that do as I say, not as I do streak in his personality.

Mimsey

What's especially pertinent to this Otto Roos story and Hubbard tech is that there's a quote from Hubbard where he says that he considers that the PC has "made it" when the PC no longer cares what's in his folders or what reads are on his case.

Per the Roos story Hubbard accused him and the other Class XII's of laughing over his case and the reads that were in it.

Later on, Otto is under cabin arrest or something, and Mary Sue is hand routing the folders to him and explaining the reads. You damned well know Hubbard and Mary Sue were going over the folders and had massive attention on the stuff.

It would've been so simple to handle in session because if nothing were there...you know the rest.

Hilarious!!
 

Ulduz

Patron with Honors
Gay is 1.1 on the stupid tone scale and it's name is Covert Hostility. Openly gay people obviously are not behaving covertly, the tone scale begins to crumble at that point.

SPs are also 1.1 but I am openly working to destroy the cult (in it's present form) and not covert in the slightest. Again see the dumb tone scale fall down.

So if I'm not 1.1 what tone am I? None! I will experience whatever emotion comes my way and don't need some linear scale devised by a charlatan to help me.

On that note, I like helping people, in fact that is why I'm a critic of the cult. Those poor victims need to wake up.

And on that note it looks like Ireland has woken up another clam, that's 4 in the last 18 months.

:biggrin:

Oh yea, and I'm gay.
You are gay, and I am extremely promiscuos heterosexual according to my CoS handlers. I am also one of the bigest SPs in their history because I sent a fellow Scienologist to a hospital with a nasty bump on his head. How could we be on the same scale level? Something must be wrong with the scale!
 
The Las Vegas Org is going to put in a roulette wheel with tone scale #'s on it. Where ever the ball falls, that is what chapter in SOS they are going to use to program your next session. After all, since you are entirely responsible for your own condition, if you spin 0.0, don't complain when your auditor flys your ruds, then starts clearing the commands for R2-45 backwards.

Hope you aren't motivating when you give the wheel a spin.....:duh:

Mimsey the pit boss
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
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.



AS a long time practitionner and student of buddhism and taoism - plus my whole life as a christian

I can tell you that this doesn't exist nor fit into any christian beleif
These are emotions - some are considered bad, some better but this scale doesn't resonnate with the beleif as compassion and sympathy is considered ''good'' and a higher state of spiritual value.

Concerning buddhism, wich I have an still do practice and study

I can assure you that any true practitionner with long hours of meditations will only smile at it.

Sit, breath deeply 3 times, then count 10 other breath , then your mind is calm , get this quiet mind for 10 minutes and then when a meditative state and quiet mind is installed, contemplate the tone scale

It might vanish and return from where it comes from
:biggrin:

From buddhist practice
Emotions are only phenomenons
There is no bad or good
Emotions are emotions
neutral state is better confortable place

By the way
I take opportunity to tell something wich is
that buddhism has nothing in common with scientology.

Ron can not be the lord Buddha - nor Mettreaya as great buddhism masters would have known and recoognize him since his childhood.

I had the chance to met some of the greatest masters of buddhism including the Dalai-lama - Matthieu Ricard, Thich Nhat Hanh , Rinpoche Sogyal , Lama Neten Rinpoche and some masters of tantric initiation..
and can tell these person have all something in common wich is joy, compassion, love, humbleness .
Rich of spiritual life and rich of possessing nothing .
They also medidate hours each day, and their talking, walking, breathing, eating, dish washing are their meditation .
They speak a very little - smile a lot
Their mental state stability is the result of years of meditation and looking at the true nature of phenomenons as well as the caused of suffering.

This is not exactely the path of LRH nor his behavior.
I don't know where he grasp his stuff but it isn't from buddhism

The great compassion is the spiritual state to reach in buddhism
Compassion is a low bad emotional state in $cientology
people lower that 2.0 should be disposed quietly according to LRH

:confused2:

Concerning the teaching of $cientology - it can't have any origin of buddhism as a true buddhism teaching can be easily recognized with something only practitionners knows because of the teachings they studied.
If people want to know how to recognize so genuine teaching they only have to look for the Dharma Sceals

Scientology has NO ONE Dharma sceal.
Thank's for reading
 
Last edited:

Idle Morgue

Gold Meritorious Patron
I totally agree...I remember a staff member telling me I was "getting better" because I was angry about WITNESSING EXTORTION, BRIBERY, LIES, LIES, LIES in the CULT of Scientology! WTF?:duh:
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
I may have said this before, but as a curious outsider learning about Scientology, I was initially quite open to the possibility that Hubbard had had at least a few really significant insights and was basically a smart guy tackling hard problems. I took the Tone Scale as one of my first solid indicators that Hubbard was, in fact, just a glibly blithering idiot.

The Tone Scale is an absurd mish-mash. The names for all the tones appear randomly chosen. The numbering is likewise obviously random. The order is arbitrary at best and in many cases ridiculous. This is sheer cargo cult psychology: we invent jargon words, and attach precise numbers, and that makes our nonsense a science!

Of course, I'm sure that anyone who wants to believe in the Tone Scale will be able to confirm it in their experience of auditing. Assigning labels to emotional states is a highly arbitrary process, since most of the terms are really quite vague. Humans hardly ever feel just one pure emotion; for example we feel at least a tiny bit of sympathy, for someone or something, much of the time. So any time Hubbard says that a person ought to be in 'sympathy', there is bound to be some excuse for saying that they are, if you want to make Hubbard right. I'm sure it won't take much squinting to be able to convince yourself that PCs really do move up through the tones in Hubbard's order — if what you want is to be convinced of that.

That's what's so absurd about the Tone Scale. Not that it's wrong. It deserves what physicists consider the most damning condemnation: it is not even wrong.
 
... Of course, I'm sure that anyone who wants to believe in the Tone Scale will be able to confirm it in their experience of auditing. ...

What is interesting from an auditing perspective is the pattern of emotional/mood shifts which can be commonly observed to occur in a pc during session. Makes no difference if it is an 'experienced pc' or complete 'novice'. They very much follow something akin to hubbard's earliest 'tone scale'.

Hubbard's detailed extended development of the tone scale is very much overdone. His labeling of emotional states is greatly overdone and his use of numeric indices is completely arbitrary, but the basic pattern of shifts as they relate to an ongoing session is a clearly observable phenomenon. Moreover, it is one for which similar comments have been remarked upon by practitioners of non-scientology counselling disciplines. Accordingly it is a useful and arguably essential tool for sessions rooted in the reactive behavior a person is likely to manifest.


Mark A. Baker
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
Sure, Mark. I read a wonderful book - a true story - about a little girl who was abused and a psychotherapist and some nuns at the orphanage did everything they could to bring her back from a near catatonic state.

After her breakthrough, some of her emotional changes were not dissimilar to what Hubbard has mentioned in re the tone scale.

The tone scale concept isn't perfect, it's arbitrary laden, and we know that. But there are some observable phenomena and it has some applicability.
 
I may have said this before, but as a curious outsider learning about Scientology, I was initially quite open to the possibility that Hubbard had had at least a few really significant insights and was basically a smart guy tackling hard problems. I took the Tone Scale as one of my first solid indicators that Hubbard was, in fact, just a glibly blithering idiot.

The Tone Scale is an absurd mish-mash. The names for all the tones appear randomly chosen. The numbering is likewise obviously random. The order is arbitrary at best and in many cases ridiculous. This is sheer cargo cult psychology: we invent jargon words, and attach precise numbers, and that makes our nonsense a science!

Of course, I'm sure that anyone who wants to believe in the Tone Scale will be able to confirm it in their experience of auditing. Assigning labels to emotional states is a highly arbitrary process, since most of the terms are really quite vague. Humans hardly ever feel just one pure emotion; for example we feel at least a tiny bit of sympathy, for someone or something, much of the time. So any time Hubbard says that a person ought to be in 'sympathy', there is bound to be some excuse for saying that they are, if you want to make Hubbard right. I'm sure it won't take much squinting to be able to convince yourself that PCs really do move up through the tones in Hubbard's order — if what you want is to be convinced of that.

That's what's so absurd about the Tone Scale. Not that it's wrong. It deserves what physicists consider the most damning condemnation: it is not even wrong.

you are high among my favorite posters SOT and your words are read avidly and given consideration. this one was difficult to digest. but. i did. i had twist my head around like linda blair in "the exorcist" but i viewed it the perspective of the writing.

how much did you study the tone scale? you must have examined the chart of human evaluation. did you read science of surival? perhaps you only saw the expanded tone scale which is more easily seen as an exercise in surrealism.

personally i did and do consider the COHE and SOS to be brilliant. some terrible flaws such as the oft cited passage concerning beggars, lepers and a venezuelan dictator.
o well, he wrote it in havana where his prefered libation was plentiful and inexpensive and would let no editor exise the drunken belches punctuating a profound and practicable treatise.
 
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.

Yah, emotions don't work like that at all. The closest thing to a true version of an emotional scale out there is https://www.paulekman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Basic-Emotions.pdf There's LOTS of debate in the socsci community how people move from one emotion to the other, dectectability, physical manifestations, etc. The one thing which can be agreed by proponents of the various theories is that people hop around A LOT when processing something impactful, so the idea of a strict "scale" is nuts.

Hope this helps those looking to find something to replace the Tone Scale with, that you know is actually based on real science :hattip:
 
Last edited:

Gizmo

Rabble Rouser
Well, what in scientology isn't stupid. Moronically stupid ?

That covers all of it. Poor old Ron his whole life had his sun dial well in the shade all the time.
 
Top