To all the Past, Present, and Future Word Clearers

[Rene Descartes]

So you put the person on the cans.

And you ask the loaded questions...

I apologize here…

I did this so many times in the past yet I forget the actual exact questions that are asked, perhaps because it has been so long since I actually did this. Hell I can't even remember all the R3R commands. Anyway...

I will give it a try. Hopefully they are close enough. Someone can put in the exact ones. I am too lazy to look them up on the web or in any old materials I have lying around.

“In the material you have studied have you gone by any word that you did not fully understand?”

“In the material you have studied is there anything that you do not understand?”

“In the material you have studied is there anything that you feel you cannot apply?”

Now this next one is a killer, at least to me.

“In the material you have studied is there anything that you disagree with?”

Okay here is where I want the comments.

Disagree and its relation to Misunderstood Words

And the end result of this thread, I hope, will be how one would create tech and admin for people to follow and be able to get them to agree with it for those times when they do not or would not or might not agree with it.

The intention of this thread is not to bash Word Clearing but instead to bash the concept of how one can apply the concepts of Word Clearing and create robots to control. Of course I cannot stop others from bashing Word Clearing but if you intend to and just go with the flow of this post we may end up bashing it anyway or at least part or most of it.

Rd00

 

[nozeno]

"Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur magni dolores eos qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt. Neque porro quisquam est, qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem. Ut enim ad minima veniam, quis nostrum exercitationem ullam corporis suscipit laboriosam, nisi ut aliquid ex ea commodi consequatur? Quis autem vel eum iure reprehenderit qui in ea voluptate velit esse quam nihil molestiae consequatur, vel illum qui dolorem eum fugiat quo voluptas nulla pariatur?"

 

[Out-Ethics]

I have done a number of meter word clearing and meter checks. I really can't say when a student has disagreements or even when it has read it is always because of MUs. But what I have observed is sometimes there is an MU. It could be that the student really has an MU or that he just gives any MU to satisfy the meter read. I have also found that at times the student disagreement was due to something he studied earlier in life or it just didn't match his/her reality. Either there was an earlier MU or maybe the student was right. In any case meter word clearing is not an exact science and in my estimate it doesn't always work. As to why it works sometimes and not others I will leave that to anybody who considers himself an expert on that.

 

[Ted]

"In your recent studies, is there anything you did not fully understand?"

"Ya. What is this thing called OT-3?"

"It's an OT level."

"Okay. I knew that. What is it?"

"You will find out when you get to that level."

"In your recent studies, is there anything you did not fully understand?"

"Ya. OT-3. What is it?"

Word clearing questions as presented in HCOBs assume the materials being studied are representative of the highest level of knowledge available and the student is lesser than. To a seeker, this is going to be false more often than not. A seeker will often be looking outside of the study materials to find what he is looking for.

 

[Royal Prince Xenu]

I have done a number of meter word clearing and meter checks. I really can't say when a student has disagreements or even when it has read it is always because of MUs. But what I have observed is sometimes there is an MU. It could be that the student really has an MU or that he just gives any MU to satisfy the meter read. I have also found that at times the student disagreement was due to something he studied earlier in life or it just didn't match his/her reality. Either there was an earlier MU or maybe the student was right. In any case meter word clearing is not an exact science and in my estimate it doesn't always work. As to why it works sometimes and not others I will leave that to anybody who considers himself an expert on that.

I only ever had M4 WC in the Academy, but I found a good way as student to identify a word which would read on the meter. I would speed scan the page in question and auditor(?) could then zero in on the actual word.

 

[Zinjifar]

M9 Wordclear = pay $250/hr until you achieve agreement with nonsense.

It's well known in behaviorist conditioning and is called a 'negative reinforcement'. The positive reinforcement is your (self-generated) 'Win' once you succumb.

Zinj

 

[FinallyMe]

If I understand your question correctly, the premise is that the only reason anyone would disagree with Scientology materials is that the person has misunderstood words. Faulty premise.

Personally, I got huge wins from receiving Method I Word Clearing and suspect that the fact that I got those wins - where I felt a LOT better about other subjects that I had just word cleared - made it easier for me to agree with that premise.

Same "technology" is used to trap you and corral you onto the Bridge - have a win on the Comm Course or some early step, and therefore the rest of the tech must be true - all supported by the CofS environment of regging, cramming, etc.

 

[Dulloldfart]

As I have written before on ESMB, I found word-clearing extremely useful, but ONLY when it is used to debug a student to the point where he is doing well. And that is all. To clear up ALL misunderstoods is futile, impossible.

Method 4 as a tool is complete useless bollocks. It's actually worse than nothing, because some people think it is useful and that it means something if someone has been M4'd on an issue. It should be obvious to anyone with half a mind that disagreeing with Hubbard does not automatically mean you misunderstand something he wrote.

Paul (ex-Pro Sup and Pro-W/C, interned and very experienced)

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

These are the QUESTIONS that I remember:

“In the material Ron has scientifically studied have you gone by any word that you did not fully understand?”

“In the material Ron has scientifically studied is there anything that you do not understand?”

“In the material Ron has scientifically studied is there anything that you feel you cannot apply?”

“In the material Ron has scientifically studied is there anything that you disagree with?”​

Originally, the questions were phrased "In the material YOU have studied..." but later it was discovered that Scientologists do not actually need to study anything, which is DevT considering that it has already been studied. They just go from point A to point B, like OT's, without wandering in aberrated fashion.

It's also called memorizing.

 

[VaD]

I've never Word Cleared people on E-Meter.
But to me, even without an E-Meter, it was a somewhat of a "ceremony" or "ritual".
Now that I look back and what and how I was doing it, I feel detested.

Yet, looking words up in the dictionary is a good way to discover new things. Good way to learn things and to get more educated.

I don't believe that it was Hubbard's "discoveries" about MUs that made it possible - "finally, in the endless eons" (as he usually presented it).

Looking up words is a good habit. Also, spotting other people's source of disagreement and not being able to think with it (that at times happens) to a word(s) he might have misinerpreted.

Command "Clear the word!" nowadays sounds offensive to me.

 

[Arthur Dent]

I've never Word Cleared people on E-Meter.
But to me, even without an E-Meter, it was a somewhat of a "ceremony" or "ritual".
Now that I look back and what and how I was doing it, I feel detested.

Yet, looking words up in the dictionary is a good way to discover new things. Good way to learn things and to get more educated.

I don't believe that it was Hubbard's "discoveries" about MUs that made it possible - "finally, in the endless eons" (as he usually presented it).



Looking up words is a good habit. Also, spotting other people's source of disagreement and not being able to think with it (that at times happens) to a word(s) he might have misinerpreted.

Command "Clear the word!" nowadays sounds offensive to me.

In high school I was called out of classes to tutor kids in special ed
because the teacher liked the way I handled the students and helped them make progress. I basically word cleared them. I never thought them stupid or incapable. I just figured it would take them longer but they would get it. And they did. I basically used Method 7 (telling them what the word means) and Method 9 (having them read til they fumble something and then working out and clearing up what they didn't get). This was long before I found scn. How can anyone possibly have dibs on misunderstood words?

I never thought Hubbard had dibs on a lot of things like that. He just organized and repackaged existing information on many topics. He can have the credit for that but truth existed a lot earlier than scn...and will exist after scn. too.

 

[AnonyMary]

So you put the person on the cans.

And you ask the loaded questions...

I apologize here…

I did this so many times in the past yet I forget the actual exact questions that are asked, perhaps because it has been so long since I actually did this. Hell I can't even remember all the R3R commands. Anyway...

I will give it a try. Hopefully they are close enough. Someone can put in the exact ones. I am too lazy to look them up on the web or in any old materials I have lying around.

“In the material you have studied have you gone by any word that you did not fully understand?”

“In the material you have studied is there anything that you do not understand?”

“In the material you have studied is there anything that you feel you cannot apply?”

Now this next one is a killer, at least to me.

“In the material you have studied is there anything that you disagree with?”

Okay here is where I want the comments.

Disagree and its relation to Misunderstood Words

And the end result of this thread, I hope, will be how one would create tech and admin for people to follow and be able to get them to agree with it for those times when they do not or would not or might not agree with it.

The intention of this thread is not to bash Word Clearing but instead to bash the concept of how one can apply the concepts of Word Clearing and create robots to control. Of course I cannot stop others from bashing Word Clearing but if you intend to and just go with the flow of this post we may end up bashing it anyway or at least part or most of it.

Rd00

Terrific points. I will add my 2 cents to it...

I sup'd and word cleared many many students during my time in scientology. I have publicly apologized multiple times for my contribution to aiding in the swallowing whole of scientology propaganda and the plethora of inaccurate information Hubbard wrote. When I was a dedicated crs sup I was clueless of the dangers.

It is clear to me that students were indoctrinated to believe materials as fact, that LRH as source meant no variation or any considerations which did not agree with what he was saying. Scientology students are not be allowed to think independently, and this is especially evident in the courseroom.

Thanks!

Mary

 

[Out-Ethics]

Disagreement with any part of the tech was always dealt with by W/Cing, FDSing, crashing MU finding, study remedies etc. If none of those handled then Qual and eventually ethics as the disagreeing student surely must have O/Ws. Not one time anybody ever said unless they were on the way out Hubbard got it wrong.

Now W/Cing for the sake of clearing words whether it is by the student himself or with help there is nothing wrong with that. This is where many in Scientology actually gets wins as this isn't stressed in schools. It can be quite a revelation to understand what you are reading. The problem in Hubbard's study tech vs Hubbard's Scientology tech is that it sets up the student to lose. The student gets smarter with the clearing of words but isn't allowed to have disagreements and even though he has read that a student should study in a non-robotic way he can never really apply that.

This probably explains why any new person already with a good vocabulary who has studied earlier subjects with a critical eye tend to drop out of Scientology early on. They question the tech and bring up views which are not pro-scientology. They are looked on as having MUs, fixed ideas, O/Ws. After all Hubbard has an answer for everything.

Study and W/Cing tech as a subject can be cleaned up and made a valuable tool for anybody to use. Hubbard perverted this by not allowing students to have any disagreements and used policies such as KSW, Ethics & Study Tech, High Crime checkouts etc as some of the references to keep students in-line. He also trained Sups and W/Cers to have the only understanding that any disagreements or arguments are a result of MUs. Take Hubbard's desire to be source out of the picture along with the SO and anything else that has to do with being a church w/cing and study tech would be a half-way decent subject.

 

[programmer_guy]

Understanding words by using a dictionary is not something that was invented in Scientology. Dictionaries should be used.

However, extinguishing a disagreement by always using enforced (and phony) "word clearing" is just another mind control technique.
(I am guilty of doing this quite a few times when I was a course sup.)

 

[Dulloldfart]

Power of choice over data is covered in the Study Tapes. It is an essential part of Study Tech. There are even drills on rejecting data you don't agree with!

M4 word-clearing contradicts this idea. To rotely follow the M4 bulletin(s) — to say that this later bulletin cancels the Power of Choice data — is stupid.

A student can disagree with something sensible Hubbard wrote because he doesn't understand what Hubbard said (he's got an m/u or missing data). Alternatively, he can disagree with something Hubbard said because what Hubbard said is crazy. These are totally different situations.

A sup or word-clearer who insists that the student swallow whole everything Hubbard said doesn't know or use Study Tech very well. That's all.

Paul

 

[Ted]

Power of choice over data is covered in the Study Tapes. It is an essential part of Study Tech. There are even drills on rejecting data you don't agree with!

M4 word-clearing contradicts this idea. To rotely follow the M4 bulletin(s) — to say that this later bulletin cancels the Power of Choice data — is stupid.

A student can disagree with something sensible Hubbard wrote because he doesn't understand what Hubbard said (he's got an m/u or missing data). Alternatively, he can disagree with something Hubbard said because what Hubbard said is crazy. These are totally different situations.

A sup or word-clearer who insists that the student swallow whole everything Hubbard said doesn't know or use Study Tech very well. That's all.

Paul

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What he said!

 

[Royal Prince Xenu]

Power of choice over data is covered in the Study Tapes. It is an essential part of Study Tech. There are even drills on rejecting data you don't agree with!

M4 word-clearing contradicts this idea. To rotely follow the M4 bulletin(s) — to say that this later bulletin cancels the Power of Choice data — is stupid.

A student can disagree with something sensible Hubbard wrote because he doesn't understand what Hubbard said (he's got an m/u or missing data). Alternatively, he can disagree with something Hubbard said because what Hubbard said is crazy. These are totally different situations.

A sup or word-clearer who insists that the student swallow whole everything Hubbard said doesn't know or use Study Tech very well. That's all.

Paul

M4 was all I really experienced other than the usual spot-checking on the study check-list. I didn't find that it was about agreement, perhaps because I was already programmed into agreement.

 

[Feral]

I found word clearing to be highly beneficial to my studies and for that I'd like to thank the English professors Charles and Ava Berner who handed the data, which was there life's work, to Hubbard as BC students.

As with all the truths and workable data that Hubbard got his hands on it got twisted into part of that sticky hypnotist's web and was used to enforce and enable his actual intentions, thus we see that little snippet in the M4 data; "On this page is there any part you disagree with?". We also see the warning in the front of every book; "The only reason a student gives up a study or becomes confused or unable to learn is because he or she has gone past a word that was misunderstood."

Orly?

Now every one of us "apostates" can be DAed by the simple statement "He has MUs"

Good grief!

 

[AnonyMary]

Power of choice over data is covered in the Study Tapes. It is an essential part of Study Tech. There are even drills on rejecting data you don't agree with!

M4 word-clearing contradicts this idea. To rotely follow the M4 bulletin(s) — to say that this later bulletin cancels the Power of Choice data — is stupid.

A student can disagree with something sensible Hubbard wrote because he doesn't understand what Hubbard said (he's got an m/u or missing data). Alternatively, he can disagree with something Hubbard said because what Hubbard said is crazy. These are totally different situations.

A sup or word-clearer who insists that the student swallow whole everything Hubbard said doesn't know or use Study Tech very well. That's all.

Paul

Baloney..... no sup or word clearer insists anything . They follow their hat, apply the tech.

You sound like you need a cram on HCO PL Keeping Scientology Working

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Power of choice over data is covered in the Study Tapes. It is an essential part of Study Tech. There are even drills on rejecting data you don't agree with!

M4 word-clearing contradicts this idea. To rotely follow the M4 bulletin(s) — to say that this later bulletin cancels the Power of Choice data — is stupid.

A student can disagree with something sensible Hubbard wrote because he doesn't understand what Hubbard said (he's got an m/u or missing data). Alternatively, he can disagree with something Hubbard said because what Hubbard said is crazy. These are totally different situations.

A sup or word-clearer who insists that the student swallow whole everything Hubbard said doesn't know or use Study Tech very well. That's all.

Paul

Yo, Paul. I know you and I had the SHSBC Supervisor post in different orgs back in the day. Your common sense approach is uncommon.

When I trained on the ship, it was under a special "Flag crack missionaire team" specifically hatted to train the top course supervisors.

They were quite standard, standing over me, glaring down all day and night with a clipboard full of pink sheets.

I remember one time I was listening to the study tapes for the 5th or 6th time (part of that checksheet) and Merle Spence angrily snapped "off" my tape recorder and pink sheeted me for not using my demo kit at all times the way Ron said. (yah i know i know it wasn't ron).

So anyways, i had to keep those little demo pieces moving.

A few hours later "BANG", there is Merle again, eyes blazing and madly writing another pink sheet that I was merely "moving pieces around, not really demoing". After I got done with another set of clay demo's to a pass, I was given a very intense, tone-40, reality-adjusting r-factor by both Merle and Qual Sec Judy Thiery that I now had been fully hatted on Ron's demo tech...and I had been warned about refusal to apply Ron's demo tech....and the next time I was "caught" not applying Ron's tech, I would be immediately shipped to the ship's MAA for major mindf*cking.

Everybody was winning on that indication... so I went back to study as if what had just happened was for the greatest good.

(fuckingCringe!)

I wonder how your interpretation of the study tech would have been received, Paul?