Where did LRH get the concept for Dev-T? (any old timers know?)

[SchwimmelPuckel]

Hubbard, if I remember correctly, says it was something he learned in the Navy.

Dev-T means developed or unnecessary traffic. Traffic means work or activity. Developed means it is generated by a person causing it and not necessary.

Sort of like a receptionist hearing the phone ring and then asking her boss if she should answer it.

But it can get rather complicated especially too.

The Anabaptist Jacques

This is what Dev-T is, allright.. And Dev-T is just about the first thing someone new on staff learns about: Namely that he's Dev-T himself, until he's learned what to do there. See, such a new 'dork' asking dorky questions about everything is Dev-T..

The application of this piece of Hubbardian doctrine was what made the Guardian's Office the most hostile and unfriendly place I've ever tried to 'work' in.

 

[Caroline]

Whew, boy. OK. S2, huh? I don't see how that applies to the behavior LRH describes in the PL, but then, I don't think like Ron. (Thank you, Jezus!) He sure comes across with a Henry VIII attitude in this PL.

Thank you for digging up all that stuff. It's so weird to read this stuff from my 30 years later point of view.
I tried to flter out just how utterly negative it was. But there it is. And so much of what he says in this PL makes no sense to me at all, now. I can be very selective in what I want retain from those days. I like the verson I had in my head much better than his version.

At that time, Hubbard was dealing with auditing and organizational failures, and was blaming his failures on low ARC auditors whose preclears recognized that Hubbard and Scientology were victimizing them.

I get some very fine reports from HAS Co-Audits throughout the world. But amongst these reports there are a few failures, a few resistive cases. I could audit them, a great many Scientologists could audit them and push them through. BUT the fact remains that there are auditors here and there who cannot.

“Why?” I asked the HCO Area Secretary London the other night on telex—”Low ARC,” she replied. And this apparently explained two case failures by field auditors.

[...]

“Low ARC,” the HCO Area Secretary London said. What did she mean by that? She meant basically that these auditors somehow or other weren’t going to make a pc well. They didn’t care enough about that pc to do the job.

The button which causes such things is VICTIM. This is the central button of the Overt Act-Motivator Sequence. Some auditor, perhaps one that is ordinarily quite good, gets a restim. He keys in something not from what the pc said for this couldn’t aberrate anyone. He gets a restim between sessions on the Overt Act-Motivator Sequence, and he comes back into session with the VICTIM button in full flare. And what does he do?

Almost beyond his control he flubs. He makes a victim out of his pc. Why? Because that’s the exact action which occurs when an Overt Act-Motivator Sequence is triggered. Low ARC. The whole answer to it is contained in VICTIM. The auditor feels that the pc deserves what he gets for a moment. He rationalises it all out—but he treated the pc as a victim. A dropped ashtray, a stupid auditor remark, an invalidation of a cognition. . . however the auditor flubs, he is treating the pc as a victim, and the pc victimised responds with bared engrams.

[...]

Scientologists who can’t stand the sight of money or who can’t seem to get pcs are just having a fine old time being in some way or another, a victim. So let’s face this reality and understand clearly that we can guarantee our successes as individuals and Organisations by getting bell clear on victim.

Then we can give service. And then an Organisation can give service. Then it’s safe to make promises. And we don’t get Administration chopped up. And it’s safe and successful to have an Organisation set up and financed and running on the mission of clearing Earth.

[...]

Before we get too far along this road let’s make sure we stay winners after we’ve won by making sure that none among us will go victim on us and cut our throats with the best intentions in the world.

Let’s define Scientologists as “People who aren’t Victims”, and really get the show on the road.

Hubbard, L. (1959, 27 August) Growth with Competence Technical Bulletins (1976 ed., Vol III, pp. 515-7) Los Angeles: Church of Scientology.

Process S2 was designed to flatten the emotional affect that goes along with observing people being victimized, individually and en masse. It puts the conscience to sleep and glorifies predation.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Process S2 was designed to flatten the emotional affect that goes along with observing people being victimized, individually and en masse. It puts the conscience to sleep and glorifies predation.

Here you (the general reader) go: http://paulsrobot3.com/scn/expgrade0/process-10-s-2-comm-with-a-victim-flow-1-a.htm. That drops you into the middle of a session, just about to run the first flow of Process S2. It's part of Expanded Grade 0.

Personally I think that process is a load of bollocks, but YMMV.

Paul

 

[I told you I was trouble]

I don't know where hubbard got it from but I loved the concept of dev-t (avoiding it and not creating it that is) as soon as I heard it but the reality (for me, on staff) was that it was just another cold, unfriendly policy used for keeping everyone on their toes, producing and being very, very careful ... and in the real world it's almost impossible to operate using the concept of dev-t all the time as so many normal people like to chat and fiddle about doing pointless stuff and get very upset when someone starts getting too orderly and productive, which is why I'm happily self employed.



I still use the concept (and a kind of battle-plan) and get loads done in a small amount of time by not creating any 'dev-t' along the way but I don't call it that or even think of it like that anymore ... and there are many people out there that haven't heard of the term who operate in a similar way.

 

[Churchill]

http://youtu.be/tQnAhSzb4gY

Oh yeah, I remember watching it for the first time and going, OMG, that really is Vonnegut... This clip is a compilation where Kurt shows up with the paper he writes for Thornton, and then cuts to Kellerman reaming him out for not only not writing his own paper, but submitting something from someone who doesn't know "the first thing about Vonnegut" I'm probably paraphrasing there...

I like stuff that makes me smile at this point... omg, Jon Cusack in freaking Better Off Dead?...don't get me wrong, loved Being John Malkovich, and he's done some AMAZING other film-work, but if I was sitting at home and had them all in front of me, I'd still probably first pull out Better Off Dead..... dang netflix started its stupid scrolling/loading thing, so hopefully Serenity will be nice and running without delays after I take this break. Beyond, annoying...

Thanks for reminding me how much I loved that stupid movie!

 

[Churchill]

OK, so I clicked Thank You on the OP, then re-posted it with a comment Thanking you again, and now have a third post explaining it all.

I am a master at dev-t!!!

 

[Caroline]

From HCO PL 2 July 1959 Developed Traffic Delirium Tremens of Central Orgs, quoted earlier, Hubbard wrote, "I have been working for two years on "Analysis of Organizations by Inspection of Its Comm Lines." It is now a fairly complete little science in itself."

Hubbard provided his sources for his communications systems science in the beginning pages of How To Live Though An Executive: Communications Manual (1953).

The manuscript of this book was prepared by RICHARD de MILLE, who helped in the development of the communications system herein set forth.

[...]

INTRODUCTION​

The experience of L. Ron Hubbard in the handling and organizing of communications and communications systems is extensive. Educated as a mathematician and engineer at George Washington University, he early became interested in problems of human relationships and the applications of electronics thereto. He has studied and worked in several systems of communication in order to bring this system to perfection.

Such systems included: the United States Army Signal Corps, the Marine Corps system, the Merchant Marine system (including British and Netherlands variations and wartime practices and refinements), U.S. Government communications systems, U.S. Navy systems (including letter mail, filing, radio, codes, networks for amphibious landings, and, most complex of all, combat information centres, as in the handling of fighter planes from carriers and in submarine search and destruction).

The more beneficial points of these systems have been utilized, and their obvious and glaring mistakes have been avoided, In his study of business and organizational communications systems, both inter-oflice and inter-plant, Mr. Hubbard has discovered that much is still to be desired to produce in these even a rudimentary circulation of information. His calculations demonstrate that by reason of poor communications alone most business and industrial organizations are running at less than twelve percent efficiency. Additionally, the most valuable personnel in American business are being wasted by improper communications service. Their time is spent largely in efforts to communicate and to obtain compliance with their plans and orders.

Hubbard, L. (1953) How To Live Though An Executive: Communications Manual. Los Angeles: Church of Scientology. PDF format.

Richard de Mille

He served with the United States Army Air Corps from 1943 to 1946. That year, he became a writer and director at KTLA, remaining in that position through 1950. Around this time he became an early convert to the movement that was to become Scientology leaving KTLA to become an editorial/personal assistant to founder L. Ron Hubbard.

More re Richard De Mille: http://the-scientologist.com/richarddemille.shtml

 

[In present time]

At that time, Hubbard was dealing with auditing and organizational failures, and was blaming his failures on low ARC auditors whose preclears recognized that Hubbard and Scientology were victimizing them.



Process S2 was designed to flatten the emotional affect that goes along with observing people being victimized, individually and en masse. It puts the conscience to sleep and glorifies predation.

Until I finally became even HALFWAY comfortable with accepting that I was actually quite viciously victimized, especially on one particular cycle in the church, I could not approach any kind of working through or healing.

I think it took one of my daughters becoming the age I was when it all happened. I was able to look at the situation in a new way and realise that if those exact events happened to her I would consider it the most serious of abuses.

Scientology isn't there to erase your painful memories, they are there to create them.

 

[aegerprimo]

Whew, boy. OK. S2, huh? I don't see how that applies to the behavior LRH describes in the PL, but then, I don't think like Ron. (Thank you, Jezus!) He sure comes across with a Henry VIII attitude in this PL.

Thank you for digging up all that stuff. It's so weird to read this stuff from my 30 years later point of view.
I tried to flter out just how utterly negative it was. But there it is. And so much of what he says in this PL makes no sense to me at all, now. I can be very selective in what I want retain from those days. I like the verson I had in my head much better than his version.

I hear ya! Whenever someone posts a piece of LRH tech, or I try to read something out of the piles of junk mail I receive just for kicks… after all these years of not being an active Scientologist, any tech (crap) I think WTF? I can’t wrap my mind around it anymore (yay). Maybe I never could really understand any of the tech and just lied to myself that I did and thought it was great stuff (like everyone else).

You and Clamicide pointed out in earlier posts – in ANY org, dev-t was plentiful. I didn’t get highly trained in green-on-white (Staff Status I & II, HCO Full-Hat), and I do not remember policy about how to multi-task or be efficient. There was a lot about what happens if you are NOT efficient, such as over full in-baskets.

Being in the Sea Org was exhausting – busy at not accomplishing much, even though you had to get your stats up and the stats somehow measured production.

Scientology really is a big DEV-T waste of time.

 

[Techless]

Scientology really is a big DEV-T waste of time.

Absolutely! And I just noticed:

"Developed" traffic does not mean usual and necessary traffic. It means unusual and unnecessary traffic. [...]

My bold, but the best definition of Scn I've ever seen written down...

(so it must be true!)

 

[Techless]

And for you Clammie,

[h=1]…and, the last words kurt vonnegut ever wrote:[/h]When the last living thing
Has died on account of us,
How poetical it would be
If Earth could say,
In a voice floating up
Perhaps
From the floor
Of the Grand Canyon,
“It is done.
People did not like it here.”


Profound and so sad....

 

[Caroline]

Until I finally became even HALFWAY comfortable with accepting that I was actually quite viciously victimized, especially on one particular cycle in the church, I could not approach any kind of working through or healing.

I think it took one of my daughters becoming the age I was when it all happened. I was able to look at the situation in a new way and realise that if those exact events happened to her I would consider it the most serious of abuses.

Scientology isn't there to erase your painful memories, they are there to create them.

I'd agree wholeheartedly that recovery requires coming to terms with the victim issue. It is key. (OCMB thread: Dear [STRIKE]Amy Scobee[/STRIKE] Loyalist Think Tankers)

I think that seeing someone else's interests as your own describes a functioning conscience. Thank you for sharing your experience, and for the insight.

PS to add: I'm sure also that most of us did not set out to victimize Scientology, or to be victimized by the Scientologists. But clearly we acted against our own best interests when we joined. Hubbard committed the original "overt" which invalidates his "victim" theory. (quoted earlier.)

In one way or another, we were inculcated with utterly false new "awarenesses" or delusions that put us on the Scientology Org Board, and set us on the "Bridge to Total Freedom." It would seem impossible that someone holding such delusions could truly act in favor of someone else's best interests. This is a good reason why Scientologists should not be permitted to work with disaster victims, for example. And it is a good reason to not support the Scientologists' underground railroad.

 

[MrNobody]

<snip>

I still use the concept (and a kind of battle-plan) and get loads done in a small amount of time by not creating any 'dev-t' along the way but I don't call it that or even think of it like that anymore ... and there are many people out there that haven't heard of the term who operate in a similar way.

Indeed.

I think "Dev-T" (the concept) must be from the early days of industrialization, because even my great-grandparents knew it very well. So, Hubbard came possibly up with the label or he "imported" it from somewhere.

Although "Dev-T" is short and sweet, I prefer to do it the old way I've been taught: "Don't jabber around, don't play with your tools, just get the job done and make sure you get it done properly and timely."

Also, from my work experiences with many different teams, I can say that "Dev-T" is almost always a sure sign of an incompetent team leader.

 

[JustSheila]

L Ron did not make up the business concept, though he may have made up the acronym "Dev-T". It was part of the 60s & 70s business efficiency concept.

In 1977, just prior to joining the Sea Org, I worked at Kraft's main offices on Peshtigo Street, Chicago, for three senior corporate executives - in the TRAFFIC Department. Our department ensured trucks were dispatched on time with the correct products and arrived safely at their destinations.

Kraft has been around since 1916. J. L. Kraft was a brilliant businessman and it was still a family-run business then. The company's efficiency, fair treatment of staff and quality control were mind-blowing. We had five communication runs a day. We had a two basket system plus "projects" - nothing could sit in "pending". We didn't walk into offices, we sent intra-office memos.

Much of what L Ron describes as "Dev-T" was contained in Kraft's traffic department and organisational policies. These, of course, pre-dated Hubbard's writings.

From what I recall of my business class back then and subsequent Sociology classes, in the 50s and 60's, Nestle, Kraft, Ford and some of the other corporate giants had laid out the basic business principles that were followed by most businesses during the Industrial Revolution and afterward. That model was very machine-like, focusing on a business hierarchy and minimal disruption of work flow. In the last 30 years, we've moved away from that model:

The model or paradigm on which all businesses have been structured since the industrial revolution comes from Newtonian physics, with its defining characteristic of a "machine like" metaphor, with our ability to analyze and manipulate the parts. Up to about 30 years ago, this worked well. But then economic and business predictions started going awry, and all kinds of practical problems couldn't be solved using the old model....

So the result was that under the old business model, mind and heart were separated from matter. This meant organizations lost their ability to engage in and profit from powerful, invisible forces their employees had to offer---attitudes, intuition, ideas, energy, heart, love--which are necessary for long term survival.

What does this mean for today's modern executive? The so-called soft side of business--often seen as "being nice", is a fundamental part of management strategy for organizational success. Now there's a paradigm shift!.

https://www.success.bz/articles/243...and_the_rise_of_soft_skills--a_new_revolution

 

[cakemaker]

It may have come from the same place that CSW's - completed staff work - came from. It's in the present Army Officer's Guide, but here is some background.

http://books.google.com/books?id=wT...fficer's guide "completed staff work"&f=false

http://govleaders.org/completed_staff_work.htm

 

[Caroline]

It may have come from the same place that CSW's - completed staff work - came from. It's in the present Army Officer's Guide, but here is some background.

http://books.google.com/books?id=wT...fficer's guide "completed staff work"&f=false

http://govleaders.org/completed_staff_work.htm

Hubbard's source is now very clear. Thanks very much, cakemaker.

He acknowledged that he was now ordering "an old term" be introduced and employed Scientology-wide in the following 1959 policy letter. When we read the CSW PL, as every Scientologist does eventually, we might have thought it was impossibillions of years old, like the org board, or from one Galactic Confederation or another, but it was a US military term when Hubbard was in the US military in the early 1940's.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 4 SEPTEMBER 1959
Issue I​

CenOCon
Missions
Field

COMPLETED STAFF WORK (CSW)-
HOW TO GET APPROVAL OF ACTIONS AND PROJECTS
THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF YOUR HAT​

There is an old term called "Completed Staff Work" which we will now employ in order to reduce dev-t and increase speed of action.

The term "Completed Staff Work" means-an assembled package of information on any given situation, plan or emergency forwarded to me sufficiently complete to require from me only an "Approved" or "Disapproved."

Here is what slows down approval and action and develops traffic: Somebody sends me a skimpy piece of information and demands a solution. As more information is required than is presented, I must then take over the person's hat and assemble the missing data using my own time and lines. I must then dream up a solution and then order an action to be taken. This causes a slowdown on
any action, causes my lines, already loaded, to be used for information assembly and brings about a feeling of emergency. My pending-basket overloads and confusion results. This would be called "Incomplete Staff Work." It is incomplete because I have to complete it by:

1. Assembling the data necessary for a solution,

2. Dreaming up the solution based on written data only, and

3. Issuing orders rather than approving orders.

[...]

Hubbard, L. (1959 4 September) Completed Staff Work (CSW) -- How To Get Approval of Actions and Projects The Most Important Piece of Your Hat. (Organization Executive Course Volume 0, Basic Staff Hat. 1991 ed., pp. 401-3). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

 

[Gib]

Hubbard's source is now very clear. Thanks very much, cakemaker.

He acknowledged that he was now ordering "an old term" be introduced and employed Scientology-wide in the following 1959 policy letter. When we read the CSW PL, as every Scientologist does eventually, we might have thought it was impossibillions of years old, like the org board, or from one Galactic Confederation or another, but it was a US military term when Hubbard was in the US military in the early 1940's.

when one thinks about it, and in reading that PL,

the Pl denotes how hubbard did not in fact KNOW what was going on, and in fact denotes how he needed other peoples help to solve situations, which means in fact he was not "OT', let alone "clear". LOL

And in the 1965 he writes KSW wherein he states only a few ideas were of help. LOL

 

[Caroline]

I counted 15 relevant instances of "traffic" in How To Live Though An Executive. Although the term "Dev-T" doesn't appear in 1953, important aspects of the concept do. Here's an example:

SECTION SIX
COMMAND LINE AND COMLINE

It is of great interest to the communicator to save the organization money. He can use this as a yardstick of the efficiency of his communications system. If he can save money by his system and within his system and still keep the communications flowing, he has a good system.

If telegrams are constantly travelling back and forth between two points, the communicator should look them over and find out what is happening. Is this much traffic necessary? Perhaps these people need to be indoctrinated in how to write a telegram. Does it take an exchange of six messages to convey information which could have been conveyed in two messages if they had been properly written? Of course, in an established communications system which was operating fully, these wires would be going through a communicator, who would not pass them unless they gave the obviously necessary data.

Some people will try to be too brief, and so will leave out data. Some will talk a lot but forget data. Some will leave data out on purpose—and what a good communications system will do to people like that will be a pleasure to see.

Hubbard, L. (1953) How To Live Though An Executive: Communications Manual. Los Angeles: Church of Scientology.

 

[Gib]

I counted 15 relevant instances of "traffic" in How To Live Though An Executive. Although the term "Dev-T" doesn't appear in 1953, important aspects of the concept do. Here's an example:

I believe that book was written or complied by Richard Mille, not hubbard, so once again hubbturd is not source, nor "OT" nor "clear", if you know what I mean.

 

[Caroline]

I believe that book was written or complied by Richard Mille, not hubbard, so once again hubbturd is not source, nor "OT" nor "clear", if you know what I mean.

Yes, Richard de Mille was credited for preparing the manuscript of the book, and for helping with the development of the communications system. De Mille was also credited a number of other times in early literature. Hubbard acknowledged de Mille's pen name, "D. Folgere" in Journal Of Scientology Issue 11-G (1953):

. . . Richard deMille proves in February ASTOUNDING that he can entertain as well as educate. Dick, known as "D. Folgere" to students of the Professional Course booklets, is on the staff of Scientology Council, Hollywood, as teacher and auditor.

De Mille's story "Safety Valve" was published in the February 1953 issue of Astounding. (The publisher of Astounding was John W. Campbell Jr., one of the founders of Dianetics.)

There is a full page article by D. Folgere in Journal of Scientology Issue 8-G (1952), titled "attention, concept running may shift to emotion, effort."

From an ad for the Professional Course Lectures booklets, in Journal of Scientology Issue 9-G (1952):

In 1952, L. Ron Hubbard, in a series of lectures, ripped apart the superstitions that have made man a slave to his own occlusions. His masterful research has unlocked the self-imposed bars between man and his potentials. He has proved that man, literally, can reach the stars.

In 50 booklets, called the Professional Course, these lectures have been summarized by D. Folgere, and presented in illustrated, easy-to-understand fascinating study. So important are these booklets that a special price for the entire set is being made to introduce them to the public. [...]

Hubbard credited De Mille as "one of the best quote authorities on Scientology" in a 1952 Philadelphia Doctorate Course lecture:

But let's take the real spinners and we find an exception to that. The real spinner was described one time to me by Richard De Mille, who wrote those course books. That's Richard De Mille, Cecil B.'s boy. An awful good kid, Richard. He probably knows way up on this subject. He's probably one of the best (quote) "authorities" on Scientology there is-because I'm not an authority on it. I couldn't be by definition. And he explained one time, he says, "You know," he said, "what psychotics look like to me?" He said, "You take a psycho and you turn him loose and he's going in this straight line and a little, tiny impulse hits him from one side and it moves him over from going on the straight line and he moves off in this new direction as modified by that impulse and he walks off in that direction. And then the next time, some other impulse hits him and shoves him over in some other direction and starts him on a new course-exterior impulse-and he moves right on over and follows in that direction." Of course, he's obeying the laws of particles.

Hubbard, L. (1952, 12 December) SOP ISSUE 3: POSTULATE, CREATIVE PROCESSING. Philadelphia Doctorate Course. Lecture conducted from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

D. Folgere is mentioned in a 1981 HCO PL:

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 OCTOBER 1981​

Remimeo

(Originally published in 1952 as
Booklet 29 of the Professional
Course Lecture Summary series.
Reissued as HCO PL for use in a
Dept 17B course.)

DYNAMICS AND THE
TONE SCALE

(Note: This is a summarization of an LRH taped lecture,
compiled in written form by D. Folgere.)​

As an individual goes up the tone scale, he IS more and more of the dynamics and he IS more in each dynamic. [... 11 pages]

L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER

Issued at the request of
the Public Services Project

Accepted by the
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
of the
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
of CALIFORNIA

"Department 17B Courses" are Div 6 entry level Scientology courses.

And, de Mille talked about helping Hubbard abduct Alexis in his Bare-faced Messiah interview.