What Does "Workable" Mean?

Terril park

Sponsor
This is from the website for the British Association for Counselling & Psychotherapy. It is a long article, and I am quoting only a small part of it, so check it out if interested.

http://www.bacp.co.uk/research/resources/

Effectiveness of counselling

The importance of research in counselling and psychotherapy

. . .

Types of Study

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs): A study in which people are allocated at random to either an intervention or control/comparison group. The effects of the intervention are determined by comparing the outcomes of both groups.

Systematic Reviews: Systematic reviews aggregate the findings of similar types of study addressing the same type of question, thus providing robust findings based on large amounts of data. Systematic reviews of RCTs, often known as meta-analyses are viewed as the most reliable type of evidence on which to base clinical and policy decisions.

Practice-based research: Studies which use pre- and post- measures (such as CORE) to study the effects of an intervention in a particular cohort of clients, without the use of a control group. Some types of case study and qualitative research can also fit within this category.

<snippity doo dah>

Paul

Was just looking at that website. It seems that mainstream therapy
dosn't really know as yet what is workable or more workable.

But research is ongoing.

In contrast Scn has the view standard tech works 100%.

Further research is a crime!

This website seems quite lucid and easy to read compared to
the heavier academic ones.

http://counsellingresource.com/lib/therapy/types/effectiveness/


" Indeed, the evidence suggests that the abilities of individual therapists may be a more significant factor in determining outcome than therapeutic orientation! So there may not be a clear answer to the question of whether there are better or worse therapeutic orientations, but there certainly are better and worse therapists."
 

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
"Workable" is such a perfect, mealy-mouthed word for Scientology. It doesn't say "effective". It doesn't say "predictable". It doesn't say "consistent". It doesn't say "proven".

It seems to say "Something does happen when a Scientology process is run". But it actually doesn't mean that either.

When you say "workable" when talking about Scientology, it automatically pulls in all the justifications and excuses as to why it doesn't work. Hubbard built in tons of excuses for why Scientology doesn't work. "Out gradient", "out tech", "suppressive", "ARC break", "overts", "misapplication", "wrong C/S", "bad metering", "misunderstoods", "hidden standards" and hundreds more.

"Workable", in Scientology, means "We have lots of reasons why it didn't, in this case, work".

Once in a while, some PCs get something "nice" happening coincident to having a session. Not what was promised. Not what was expected. But "something nice".

That is, in Scientology, "workable".

You can get as much "workablility" from anything else and nothing. Sometimes "something nice" happens when a person hasn't done anything at all.
 
Last edited:

whoisxenu

Patron with Honors
What Does "Workable" Mean?
Short answer - an antonym for "Scientology." (at least in the Marcabian Federation)
:aliengreeting:
 

Sindy

Crusader
When I think back on how we viewed and used the term "workable" in Scientology it meant this:

Dear new public walking in the door for the first time, don't get scared off. We're not saying that Scientology is the ONLY path (of course not!) so don't freak out. We're just sayin' it's workable, man. We're using it because it works. We're not dogmatic or frightening like the other religions you may have checked out. Don't worry. We're just over here doin' this workable thing.

Seriously, that's how it was used. Maybe I didn't have enough services to see it used within the context of the tech as some technical point like, "Well, take a look there Ms. Student and ask yourself, 'Is it workable?' and then you'll have the certainty you're looking for, blah, blah..."
 

Leland

Crusader
When I think back on how we viewed and used the term "workable" in Scientology it meant this:

Dear new public walking in the door for the first time, don't get scared off. We're not saying that Scientology is the ONLY path (of course not!) so don't freak out. We're just sayin' it's workable, man. We're using it because it works. We're not dogmatic or frightening like the other religions you may have checked out. Don't worry. We're just over here doin' this workable thing.

Seriously, that's how it was used. Maybe I didn't have enough services to see it used within the context of the tech as some technical point like, "Well, take a look there Ms. Student and ask yourself, 'Is it workable?' and then you'll have the certainty you're looking for, blah, blah..."

Spot on. Hit the nail on the head....

But boy, do they later turn the tables...on one.
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
"Workable" is such a perfect, mealy-mouthed word for Scientology. It doesn't say "effective". It doesn't say "predictable". It doesn't say "consistent". It doesn't say "proven".

It seems to say "Something does happen when a Scientology process is run". But it actually doesn't mean that either.

When you say "workable" when talking about Scientology, it automatically pulls in all the justifications and excuses as to why it doesn't work. Hubbard built in tons of excuses for why Scientology doesn't work. "Out gradient", "out tech", "suppressive", "ARC break", "overts", "misapplication", "wrong C/S", "bad metering", "misunderstoods", "hidden standards" and hundreds more.

"Workable", in Scientology, means "We have lots of reasons why it didn't, in this case, work".

Once in a while, some PCs get something "nice" happening coincident to having a session. Not what was promised. Not what was expected. But "something nice".

That is, in Scientology, "workable".

You can get as much "workablility" from anything else and nothing. Sometimes "something nice" happens when a person hasn't done anything at all.

I'm not an auditor, but I have been a pc, so I'd like to answer this;

No it doesn't, because for example overts are only an issue for you (in a session) if you believe they are. Put it this way; if you're cheating on your taxes and feel fine about it (because you believe the government are a bunch of crooks and don't deserve to have any money from you at all), you're not going to have an issue with it in session, whereas if you feel uneasy about it, you most likely will.

Likewise ARC breaks; if you don't believe you have one, it won't show up as a problem in session. The key question in each case is; does it affect your ability to look at the material you're trying to look at?
 
Last edited:

Sindy

Crusader
I'm not an auditor, but I have been a pc, so I'd like to answer this;

No it doesn't, because for example overts are only an issue for you (in a session) if you believe they are. Put it this way; if you're cheating on your taxes and feel fine about it (because you believe the government are a bunch of crooks and don't deserve to have any money from you at all), you're not going to have an issue with it in session, whereas if you feel uneasy about it, you most likely will.

Likewise ARC breaks; if you don't believe you have one, it won't show up as a problem in session. The key question in each case is; does it affect your ability to look at the material you're trying to look at?

The problem here is that all the control is in the auditor's hands. Did you read Andy Porter's story on Mike Rinder's blog yesterday?

The auditing session begins and the auditor asks me if I have an ARC Break, meaning a recent upset. The auditor is focused on the e-meter to tell him the answer to his question. What I say is apparently secondary to what he reads in the meter. He looks at me with a glance that tells me he has seen a read on the meter indicating that I do in fact have a recent upset.

And I do. I am upset (“upset” being a mild description of how I really feel) about the length of the sec check. I am upset that it has gone on for more than 100 hours. I purchased 13 intensives of auditing (an intensive is 12 ½ hours) I got a discount for buying many at once, so I paid about $5,000 for each one. Almost all the money I paid has been used up, and the only result is that I feel immeasurably worse than when I arrived. To be even more direct, I hate the process, I feel it is demeaning, belittling, suppressive, oppressive and I am so fucking pissed off I can hardly contain my emotions.

But that’s not smart. Anyone in Scientology knows that ANY complaints, or any emotional negative response about confession means only that you have more crimes to confess.

So, I calm myself and explain that , “No, I do not have an ARC Break”. The auditor now asks me if someone “said I had an upset when I didn’t have one?” And I say, yes, you just did.

This works, and the auditor says that my needle is floating (I don’t believe my needle has floated in months, since this nonsense started) and we get to move forward on to the next question, “Do you have a present time problem?”

Well, let’s see…how to start? I have a problem that I just borrowed $40,000 to buy more auditing for the torture…er, Sec Check. There is the problem of knowing that something is wrong, and not wanting to continue…there is a problem that every day people see me, my friends and they ask me how it’s going, envious that I am “getting onto OT 7” and I have to lie and tell them it’s all wonderful and that I LOVE it. Yes, there are a LOT of problems.

But I am in a twisted version of Ground Hog Day…living the same shitty day over and over…and eventually I have learned from my mistakes.

In sessions past I have vocalized my worries, concerns and upsets. I explained my doubts and fears…all to no avail. If anything, my candid discussions of my reality have only made this last longer and be more torturous. One day I tried vehemently protesting the endless bullshit sec checking and blasted the auditor and case supervisor.

It was like the incarnation in Ground Hog Day when Bill Murray robs the bank and kills several people in Punxsutawney before awakening the next morning again, as always, in the same bed. My honest communication earned me a trip to the Ethics Officer and several meetings with the tech services people. They made their point: if you do that shit again, we’ll throw your ass outta here and you can kiss going free good bye… forever.

So, I am thinking, No, No Problems Here! No SIR! With a big smile, and lo and behold! I get it right and we’re off to the big question: “Has a withhold been missed?” This question is asking me, in so many words, is there something you have done that you don’t want us (or someone) to find out about? Or, another way to paraphrase the question is: Have you done anything you don’t want to talk about? Or, Is there something you have done, something discreditable, that you are withholding, but you somehow think that someone may know or guess your secret?

This is a loaded question if there ever was one. The effect of these types of questions is to introvert you, to create introversion and introspection.

When I first arrived and started the auditing process I was in a different frame of mind. I wanted to prostrate myself, to confess everything, to throw myself at the mercy of the priest, er, auditor and beg forgiveness for my many sins. Yes, I was bad, have pity on me, I was/am a sinner…

The funny thing (not that there is really anything funny about any of this mind-fuck craziness) is that I never really had anything to confess!
 

Sindy

Crusader
In other words, one easily falls into being concerned about what the auditor or what "Scientology or Scientologists" would consider an overt and not what one thinks him or herself and even if one were to say, "hey, I don't think that's an overt and I'm fine with not handling that...it's not a problem to ME" that doesn't matter in the cult -- AT ALL and if it really, REALLY is not like that in the Freezone, etc...then great. That's the way it should be.

My guess is that if the Freezone or any Indie group expanded enough to become a going concern such as the Cult itself, it would start to do the same exact thing (probably without even realizing it) as the group started exerting its robotic mores.
 
Last edited:

Sindy

Crusader
The more I think about it the more I think that a person who is so independent as to be completely responsible for one's own "case" (meaning never taking guidance, advice and never allowing another's opinion to taint one's own reality) is someone who doesn't need Scientology or at least would never do well within a group. The constant push to become a group member is what does the trick and LRH tells you that up front in "Clean Hands Make A Happy Life". Slowly but surely inside the group one is conditioned to take on the "viewpoint" of the group and the guiltier and more hunted and introverted one becomes.
 

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
I'm not an auditor, but I have been a pc, so I'd like to answer this;

No it doesn't, because for example overts are only an issue for you (in a session) if you believe they are. Put it this way; if you're cheating on your taxes and feel fine about it (because you believe the government are a bunch of crooks and don't deserve to have any money from you at all), you're not going to have an issue with it in session, whereas if you feel uneasy about it, you most likely will.

Likewise ARC breaks; if you don't believe you have one, it won't show up as a problem in session. The key question in each case is; does it affect your ability to look at the material you're trying to look at?
I didn't say any of those WERE the reason that the "tech" didn't work. I'm saying these are one of the many, many excuses why the "tech" didn't work - "this time".

The actual reason the "tech" didn't produce the promised results is ... because the "tech" does not produce those results any more than sniffing flowers or "healing crystals" do. (i.e. only if you believe enough).
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
The more I think about it the more I think that a person who is so independent as to be completely responsible for one's own "case" (meaning never taking guidance, advice and never allowing another's opinion to taint one's own reality) is someone who doesn't need Scientology or at least would never do well within a group. The constant push to become a group member is what does the trick and LRH tells you that up front in "Clean Hands Make A Happy Life". Slowly but surely inside the group one is conditioned to take on the "viewpoint" of the group and the guiltier and more hunted and introverted one becomes.


Okay, let's review:

A degenerate liar, charlatan, con man and career-criminal writes a memo called "Clean Hands Make a Happy Life"--and it is immediately designated (by him) as sacred religious scripture.

Thereafter, this "dirty hands" hustler defrauds others of vast fortunes by threatening to take away their "eternity" and other terrorizing tales of intergalactic horror (e.g. the "Wall of Fire" ) which will instantly kill them if they don't quietly submit to decades of self-destructive acts--such as obediently handing over all their earnings & savings as well as borrowing themselves into overwhelming debt and/or bankruptcy.

While all this is going on the avaricious hustler subjects his victims to decades of abusive personal witchhunts (called "Ethics") and lavishly expensive personal interrogations and torture (called "sec checks").

Astonishingly, the victim requires decades to realize that they are being ruthlessly exploited by relentless stalking, treachery and betrayal at the hands of a lying and remorseless criminal. They never pause for a moment to question the depraved thuggery of all this because they have "knowingness" that their slavemaster is only trying to help them to lead an honest life with "clean hands".

Scientology: At first casual glance, it sounds like something that might be good for an individual and help the world at large. In the beginning Scientology uses smiles, validation and lovely words like "freedom", "happiness" and "honesty". So, naturally, people relax and put their guard down. That's a really, really bad mistake.
 
Last edited:

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
I didn't say any of those WERE the reason that the "tech" didn't work. I'm saying these are one of the many, many excuses why the "tech" didn't work - "this time"..

Fair enough. My comments were aimed primarily at the CofS's assertions that having overts and ARC breaks was a sufficient reason for a process not working. There was no assumption that you yourself attached any credibility to those assertions.

I'm sorry if I wasn't sufficiently clear.

The actual reason the "tech" didn't produce the promised results is ... because the "tech" does not produce those results any more than sniffing flowers or "healing crystals" do. (i.e. only if you believe enough).

In my experience, that isn't true.

I started my experiences in Scn very reluctantly and, given the choice, would never have walked through the doors of my local Org at all. I took a lot of convincing that there was any merit in the subject whatsoever.

Despite that, I still had what I consider to have been a big win on my "Ups and Downs" course (an introductory version of the PTS Rundown).

Maybe in future we should agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
In my experience, that isn't true.

I started my experiences in Scn very reluctantly and, given the choice, would never have walked through the doors of my local Org at all. I took a lot of convincing that there was any merit in the subject whatsoever.

Despite that, I still had what I consider to have been a big win on my "Ups and Downs" course (an introductory version of the PTS Rundown).

Maybe in future we should agree to disagree.
I'm always agreeable to disagreeing. :biggrin:

I'm always careful, when dissing Scientology's results, to say "Scientology does not produce the results promised."

I do not deny that Scientologists, including myself back when, get something out of Scientology. Otherwise we would never have gotten in or stayed in for as long as we did. I especially got some nice things from the lower level courses and processes.

But, referring to the books, lectures and especially the Grade Chart, Scientology does not, cannot and will not produce the specific results promised.
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
The term 'workable' struck me as odd right away when I saw it. Scientologists always seemed to say 'workable' as if were something great, when to me it only sounded weak. Nobody would advertise a car or a laptop or even a toaster as being merely 'workable'. Lots of pretty bad things can sometimes be gotten to work, if you fuss with them a lot, and if you're lucky. They're workable, but you can't really say that they work. When Hubbard got people to to confuse workability with reliably working, he had them sucked in pretty far.

It would be different if Scientology would openly and honestly say, "Hey, this is all kind of iffy — but what else do you expect, when you're dealing with minds? We're more workable than the alternatives; we deliver better results, more often, for a given investment of money and effort and time." That kind of claim would not be nearly so laughable.

Most of scientific research, for example, is more workable than working. Physics experiments, almost by definition, use technology that is beyond cutting-edge; you could call it "stabbing point". The whole thing maybe only works a few days in each month; most of the time, some one of a dozen critical components is out of whack, and the grad students are staying up all night trying to kludge together a fix before something else breaks. Pull in some inexperienced bozo off the street, and they will not be able to get the experiment to work. It's a horse only an expert jockey can ride.

You've got to be honest about the proportional return on investment. With physics experiments, the investment is high but not outrageous and the returns are impressive. You need talented people to train a few years, and you need some patience to get all your components showing green lights together, but then the thing really works reliably, and produces surprising but consistent results that will be the same as those that another group like yours will get, anywhere in the world. You do not need uniquely gifted individuals, they don't need to train for decades, the results really are surprising and not banal, and they don't appear only when nobody is looking carefully.

My impression is that Scientology tends to demand such extreme investment, and deliver such comparatively modest returns, that 'workable' really is a weak claim. "Bring me a hunk of filet mignon, and a grinder, and now look away and turn this crank. Thank you. Now look what great steak tartare I've made you!"
 
Top