What can be saved of the tech? What´s workable still? What is crap?

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
OK, some comments about #1, Study Tech. I was a sup for ten years, including many years at ITO, so I have a fair bit of familiarity with Study Tech. I did the Study Tapes several times, including M2ing them; the HPCSC line-up including Pro W/C Course and Interneship. I also did KTL, and several years full-time sup'ing.

I have commented on KTL at length elsewhere, so will leave that out. The rest of what I write here is from memory with regard to dates, so some may be off a bit.

Alan Walter wrote here on ESMB how Hubbard ripped off Study Tech from the decades of research of Charles Berner and his wife, and then he got rid of them. "Study Tech" therefore includes their research, mostly recorded by Hubbard in taped lectures, the "Study Tapes". There are a few tapes from a different time period sometimes tossed in there, disrelated to the Berners' work. There is also the 1970/71 word clearing stuff issued as HCOBs then, including Method 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 W/Cing. There is mention of some of this at that time in tapes, like Talk on a Basic Qual. Later in 1978 or so there is the revised M9 HCOB, FDSing, Crashing M/U Finding, and Debug Tech. Arguably all this is part of Study Tech, or maybe not.

I'm going to pretend here that it all came from Hubbard, as the real source(s) in most cases are hard to find.

Looking up words you don't understand is not original to Hubbard, of course. But one highly useful thing he added was *exactly when you need to*. Many of my students would get hung up on studying stuff because they didn't know the exact meanings of all the words. In reality, after some experimentation (that I wrote up at length here on ESMB and elsewhere), I discovered that pretty much everyone who hadn't done KTL was going by maybe 20 m/us a page anyway, as well as many people who *had* done KTL. So going by mu's wasn't a problem — some people could do this all day and still seem bright and shiny and be able to do what the checksheet called for despite it. What was the problem was not merely mu's but the mu's that held people up.

Enter Method 3 word-clearing. I've written this up at length here and elsewhere too. Very few people do it right. Done correctly, it is THE most useful word-clearing tool imaginable, and it is what I would use almost exclusively to debug students with. The trick is not to find A misunderstood — as almost everyone is going by several per paragraph anyway — but to find THE misunderstood, the one which is really bugging the person.

In the Study Tapes Hubbard says that you don't have to clear every single word. For example, if you come across a word from a technical subject, that you don't know the technical background of, you can just say to yourself as you see it, "Ah, yes, I don't know what SPLGGT means exactly" and continue studying. Maybe that will be sufficient and you can carry on fine, or maybe after a little bit you find you need to know a bit more about SPLGGT, so you go back and clear it (or the indicated earlier related word) a bit more. When you get good at this, you can look up SPLGGT in a technical manual, in a subject you know next to nothing about, and skim through the explanation, only 10% of which you understand maybe, and after a bit you know enough about SPLGGT to continue on with study and you're completely unconcerned about the pages of technical stuff that meant nothing to you. It's like having bilingual friends who chatter away in their own language — the words they are saying usually don't act as mu's because you don't even try to understand them.

So that is some highly useful tech on clearing words. In the lecture, Hubbard talks about walking through the minefield safely when you can do this well. And it's true. It is very satisfying to be able to read technical articles and actually learn something from them without being familiar with that field at all.

As a sup, I found very few people had understood this bit from the Study Tapes, about when you could safely go by a word you didn't understand (and when you couldn't). Along with not knowing how to do Method 3 properly, I think those were the two main very useful things people didn't get most in Study Tech.

-----

I've commented elsewhere about the different methods of Word Clearing, and I'm not going to repeat all that. But just because I LOVE M3, doesn't mean that I love M4 or M2! M4 done exactly per the M4 HCOBs is an abomination, and M2 little better.

Paul
 
G

Gottabrain

Guest
Hi Paul,

You know me - I'm about as ex-Scilo as anyone can be. But I do have positive things to say about W/Cing.

I was a Hubbard Professional Word Clearer in the Pac Training Org where EPFers did Product 0, 1 & 2 in 1978. My second post in Scn.

Everything you say about M-3 is true.

But nobody here talks much about M-1, or going "wholetrack" in metered wordclearing.

I have personally had and been able to provide spectacular results with M-1 and metered W/Cing. I hate admitting wins in Scilo, but these are just undeniable and I don't want to lie to myself or anyone else.

The roots of words go way, way back. In metered W/Cing, you just "touch" on the earlier word/root. That's all. It's all that's needed.

One W/Cing session I was giving was so spectacular, that a word on a chain we hit couldn't be said aloud without busting up into gales of laughter. I'm serious! It was like a trigger to a spiritual funnybone. I got crammed, of course. Lol! I still get the giggles thinking of that session.

I will not speculate on how or why this is so, as I've only been on this Board for 3 wks, although I've been out for many years. So many of you have more experience with comparing the "tech" and reasons for things. I will say, though, that aside from the W/Cing "touch" on E/S words, I didn't have a whole lot of use for wholetrack memories in other auditing. W/Cing was better, by far, in terms of gains.

In terms of wholetrack words and their restim effect, I did have one opportunity where this came up in another religion/culture after I left:

A good friend of mine, an Israeli, was attending a visit from a very powerful and honored Rabbi from Israel who was extremely learned in the Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism). Not myself Jewish, I couldn't attend (bummer!), so I asked him to ask the Rabbi why I was having bad luck.

The Rabbi's answer was to ask what my name was? Turns out, my name, which was an innocent long Polish name, was shortened when my father was a kid. The shortened version... Whoa!! The shortened version meant "devil" in Hebrew.

The Rabbi explained this and said to change my name. My luck DID change, and I told all my brothers and sisters the same thing. None of us carry the shortened name anymore and my brother who married a Jewish girl changed his name in time before the wedding.

True story.
 
G

Gottabrain

Guest
P.S.

Paul, I am really glad you started this thread. It gives me a bit of balance to admit that there were some parts that were okay. I wouldn't even mind if some of those parts were used in the Free Zone (but not OT levels...BAD stuff). I don't use any part of Scilo now, though, and I'm much happier (and saner) that way.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
OK, some comments about #1, Study Tech. I was a sup for ten years, including many years at ITO, so I have a fair bit of familiarity with Study Tech. I did the Study Tapes several times, including M2ing them; the HPCSC line-up including Pro W/C Course and Interneship. I also did KTL, and several years full-time sup'ing.

I have commented on KTL at length elsewhere, so will leave that out. The rest of what I write here is from memory with regard to dates, so some may be off a bit.

Alan Walter wrote here on ESMB how Hubbard ripped off Study Tech from the decades of research of Charles Berner and his wife, and then he got rid of them. "Study Tech" therefore includes their research, mostly recorded by Hubbard in taped lectures, the "Study Tapes". There are a few tapes from a different time period sometimes tossed in there, disrelated to the Berners' work. There is also the 1970/71 word clearing stuff issued as HCOBs then, including Method 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 W/Cing. There is mention of some of this at that time in tapes, like Talk on a Basic Qual. Later in 1978 or so there is the revised M9 HCOB, FDSing, Crashing M/U Finding, and Debug Tech. Arguably all this is part of Study Tech, or maybe not.

I'm going to pretend here that it all came from Hubbard, as the real source(s) in most cases are hard to find.

Looking up words you don't understand is not original to Hubbard, of course. But one highly useful thing he added was *exactly when you need to*. Many of my students would get hung up on studying stuff because they didn't know the exact meanings of all the words. In reality, after some experimentation (that I wrote up at length here on ESMB and elsewhere), I discovered that pretty much everyone who hadn't done KTL was going by maybe 20 m/us a page anyway, as well as many people who *had* done KTL. So going by mu's wasn't a problem — some people could do this all day and still seem bright and shiny and be able to do what the checksheet called for despite it. What was the problem was not merely mu's but the mu's that held people up.

Enter Method 3 word-clearing. I've written this up at length here and elsewhere too. Very few people do it right. Done correctly, it is THE most useful word-clearing tool imaginable, and it is what I would use almost exclusively to debug students with. The trick is not to find A misunderstood — as almost everyone is going by several per paragraph anyway — but to find THE misunderstood, the one which is really bugging the person.

In the Study Tapes Hubbard says that you don't have to clear every single word. For example, if you come across a word from a technical subject, that you don't know the technical background of, you can just say to yourself as you see it, "Ah, yes, I don't know what SPLGGT means exactly" and continue studying. Maybe that will be sufficient and you can carry on fine, or maybe after a little bit you find you need to know a bit more about SPLGGT, so you go back and clear it (or the indicated earlier related word) a bit more. When you get good at this, you can look up SPLGGT in a technical manual, in a subject you know next to nothing about, and skim through the explanation, only 10% of which you understand maybe, and after a bit you know enough about SPLGGT to continue on with study and you're completely unconcerned about the pages of technical stuff that meant nothing to you. It's like having bilingual friends who chatter away in their own language — the words they are saying usually don't act as mu's because you don't even try to understand them.

So that is some highly useful tech on clearing words. In the lecture, Hubbard talks about walking through the minefield safely when you can do this well. And it's true. It is very satisfying to be able to read technical articles and actually learn something from them without being familiar with that field at all.

As a sup, I found very few people had understood this bit from the Study Tapes, about when you could safely go by a word you didn't understand (and when you couldn't). Along with not knowing how to do Method 3 properly, I think those were the two main very useful things people didn't get most in Study Tech.

-----

I've commented elsewhere about the different methods of Word Clearing, and I'm not going to repeat all that. But just because I LOVE M3, doesn't mean that I love M4 or M2! M4 done exactly per the M4 HCOBs is an abomination, and M2 little better.

Paul

Right on Paul. M3 rules!

I've helped those who complained LRH was some sort of criminal
to those who can barely understand english, to those in a foreign language
I couldn't understand. And you do this better than I.

Of course its not only related to Scn.

Those who go to university, or the best universities manage to study quite well.

Got a test for my son doing math. To see if he can help my study where I'm lost.

Results later if I can drag him from his X box. :)
 

sp declared

Patron with Honors
Veda, IMO, said a very important thing: you can save things only so long as YOU do the thinking and not LRH or some other person.

Sp Declared
 
G

Gottabrain

Guest
Nozeno! :roflmao:

Thanks, I needed that. :thumbsup:

Cal Mag was good. Well, it was until a NOTS public at AOLA drank gallons of it within an hour or two and died.

He really did. He had something wrong with him. It was quite shocking at the time. Like the radio show that asked people to drink as much water as they could without peeing and then the lady died.

You just never know what could be dangerous in Scilo.

Like, you know, those baskets. What if you put something in Pending that should be in Out and someone dies?
 
G

Gottabrain

Guest
SP - I know! It was so unbelievable at the time. We were shocked, upset, and then bewildered, and then laughing, too.

I mean - Cal Mag?!?! But it's TRUE!
 

sp declared

Patron with Honors
:roflmao:

Look, the more I think about it, the more I can't stop laughing...

I mean, dying of calmag. This is really crazy

But how can someone drink a gallon of Calmag in a couple of hours time and still go in session?

Gottabrain, thanks for the fun you bring to the board.

S.D.
 
G

Gottabrain

Guest
Thanks, SP!

Merry Christmas!!

So much I write on here is so heavy with the SO memories & all, that here and there a bit of humour is needed to help balance it all out.

The poor guy never made it to session. They were backed up that day. I think he was Mexican or some sort of foreigner. My ex used to provide the Cal Mag for the NOTS Div, made huge containers of the stuff and Jerry Mulkey was the NOTS Tech Sec at the time. The NOTS public would just help themselves.

Jerry noticed he was drinking a lot, but very busy, so it was maybe an hour or so before he told the guy to slow down. Too late.

The Calmag severely aggravated some sort of liver or organ problem he had that no one knew about (not even him). It built up in his system and ultimately killed him. WHY he would be be so persistent to overdose himself on the one thing that would kill him particularly is one of those weird mysteries of life.

Life is strange. Scilo is stranger.
 

Helena Handbasket

Gold Meritorious Patron
:roflmao:

Look, the more I think about it, the more I can't stop laughing...

I mean, dying of calmag. This is really crazy

But how can someone drink a gallon of Calmag in a couple of hours time and still go in session?

Gottabrain, thanks for the fun you bring to the board.

S.D.

Yes, but was he allowed to pee?

I guess so; if he weren't, it wouldn't be Scientology, it would be est.

Seriously, I found the Student Hat to be the most incredibly ridiculous waste of time ever. So awful I nicknamed it the Stupid Hat.

All the basic steps---like gradients and looking up words---these were thing I was doing anyway. One of the basics is to put the idea there that "there is something here worth learning". Well, that statement doesn't apply to the Stupid Hat.

I did have a lot of trouble understanding the bulletin on conceptual thinking. I read it over and over again until I realized---conceptual thinking is what I had always been doing. It was the other kind of thinking---thinking in words---that I was unfamiliar with.

I consider myself a Natural Super Lit, and although they told me there's no such thing, I am one nonetheless.

I did learn one lesson of importance on the Stupid Hat. I made it all the way up to AO without doing it. Then a sup there asked me if I had done it, and I figured I had to tell the truth, so I said no. So they routed me onto it. (It was free, but what about my time?) The lesson I learned is that you don't always have to tell the truth, and sometimes if you don't, they're never going to know any different.

Helena
 
P.S.

Paul, I am really glad you started this thread. It gives me a bit of balance to admit that there were some parts that were okay. I wouldn't even mind if some of those parts were used in the Free Zone (but not OT levels...BAD stuff). I don't use any part of Scilo now, though, and I'm much happier (and saner) that way.

I find it important to acknowledge both the 'positives' as well as the 'negatives' of any person or subject in order to not be stuck on them. I won't bother you with the 'scientology' for why as I know that can be troubling for you and most likely you are already amply familiar with it. But it is basically about accepting the actuality of a person or thing for what it is rather than how we may choose to think of it.

:devil: When you demonize a thing you are haunted by the demons you have created.

:notworthy: Similarly when you idolize a thing, you are left to worship your own false idol.

This is also an important principle found within the traditional eastern philosophies Vedanta & Buddhism. Hence the emphasis laid upon non-attachment in those traditions.


Mark A. Baker
 

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: use of the tech

Hi Paul,

I´ll make a short list, and ask how applicable they find any of these items to their actual lives. First if they believe in the workability of this pieces of tech, second question if they apply it in their monthly live to some extent.

1. Study tech, clearing words, mass, gradient.
<snip>

Question is:

What is still valuable for you, and most importantly, what not, and WHY? I know for you, who have been a long while deciphering this for yourself, it might be a boring question somehow. But for me it is a hot topic.

Best,

Paul :drool:
Let me comment on your first one: Study tech.

If you have never learned to study, this will be of some limited benefit. You will initially improve your ability to study. Choosing a good dictionary and learning how to use a dictionary is very valuable.

But the more you use Study Tech and the more strictly you apply it, the worse it gets. Fully and thoroughly applied, it will destroy your ability to learn.

I know people who cannot study any more because they are so deathly afraid of "going past a misunderstood word" and of "word chains" that they avoid reading anything at all or only read children's books.

But that isn't the worst result. Hard wired into Study Tech is that any difficulty in study is your fault -- only your fault. You must "exactly duplicate" and find full agreement with the authority who wrote the material.

The result of that is quite obvious. Look at Scientology. No one ever questions what they study. No one checks the validity of what is said. No one independently investigates or even independently evaluates what was studied. Blind, unquestioning obedience to the "source material" is built into Study Tech. Ultimately, it's just another part of the trap.

If one actually wants to improve their study habits, there a many other, much better, methods which were actually tested and verified.

(The Church of Scientology confidentially ran independent tests of the Study Tech in the real world to "prove" how superior the method was -- and the results were, um, not good. So the church suppressed the report and continued to claim the tech was superior. :duh:)
 

GoNuclear

Gold Meritorious Patron
Apply the tech? A doctor, when giving a prostate exam, can always give the command "FEEL MY FINGER!"

Pete
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
For me, it's his thoughts about theta. And about the workings of the mind, mental mechanisms. That's a large part of what I still keep in my life and truly love.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Re: use of the tech

Let me comment on your first one: Study tech.

If you have never learned to study, this will be of some limited benefit. You will initially improve your ability to study. Choosing a good dictionary and learning how to use a dictionary is very valuable.

But the more you use Study Tech and the more strictly you apply it, the worse it gets. Fully and thoroughly applied, it will destroy your ability to learn.

Rubbish.

You're right about that effect on some people who had done some Study Tech. As a sup I sometimes came across people like that. They could happily zoom through a novel, but a page of Scn took forever. There is actually tech in the Study Tapes on how to handle that, how you don't have to know the meaning of every word in something you're studying, and how you can bypass scads of stuff you don't understand without any liability at all (most of the time — if you suffer from mu phenomena you have to go back and fix it but you still don't have to clear every single word you don't know). I do it all the time. It's not some esoteric inference that you might get from what Hubbard said if you think the right thoughts— it's very clearly spelled out.

Maybe you had mu's on that tape. :biggrin:

Paul
 

DagwoodGum

Squirreling Dervish
Was anyone else stunningly disappointed with the lack of real "tech" with just a superfluous pretense of such when they went through their training? You'd read the same KSW crap to start each course and by the time you got to the meat of the matter and separated the wheat from the shaft, there just wasn't much wheat. I always had a mid 150's IQ and found that I could digest a level on the training package in a few hours and I was SO DISAPPOINTED. There was just NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL TO ANY OF IT! Not worth my time and certainly not worth my money. Once I started my auditing I got a floating T/A & just f/ned my way through everything, nothing bit whatsoever...That's when I figured out it was the E-meter. As all I had to do is get word cleared on something and I would f/n for the rest of the day. Just effected my body that way.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
Was anyone else stunningly disappointed with the lack of real "tech" with just a superfluous pretense of such when they went through their training? You'd read the same KSW crap to start each course and by the time you got to the meat of the matter and separated the wheat from the shaft, there just wasn't much wheat. I always had a mid 150's IQ and found that I could digest a level on the training package in a few hours and I was SO DISAPPOINTED. There was just NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL TO ANY OF IT! Not worth my time and certainly not worth my money. Once I started my auditing I got a floating T/A & just f/ned my way through everything, nothing bit whatsoever...That's when I figured out it was the E-meter. As all I had to do is get word cleared on something and I would f/n for the rest of the day. Just effected my body that way.

This is the reason I started the "Valid Antecedents of Scn" thread. Once you realize where the effective ingredients came from, the tech becomes just Ron Hubbard's recipe. There are better recipes(much better). You can also make your own. You may lack confidence to do this until youstart reading these forerunners, and some modern stuff like CBT, DBT, ACT, or my own favorite, Metapsychology. Once you put your own mind to the problem, though, Hubbard's tech will be a lot less important to you. You need "data of comparable magnitude" in order to think intelligently.
 

haiqu

Patron Meritorious
Paul, before I forget, a) welcome, b) Anonymous is running an exit survey that will be of use to both anons and ex-CoS members alike.

I've done some charts and graphs later on in that thread that may be of interest.

Seems like the TinyURL to the actual survey is a dead link.
 
Top