You may be familiar with L. Ron Hubbard’s study tech. It is a very workable piece of technology for studying any subject. LRH describes three barriers to study:
- Lack of mass – studying a subject without access to the real thing one is studying and not representing it with drawings, clay demonstrations or at least using small desk items to represent the real things one is studying.
- Skipped gradient – jumping over material or progressing to fast in one’s study, leaving gaps in knowledge.
- The misunderstood word – going past a word or symbol one does not fully understand, making the subject difficult to grasp or misunderstood altogether. After all, a book contains mostly words and symbols, these are the building blocks of any subject one is studying.
These barriers to study makes up the foundation of Hubbard’s study tech which in turn makes up the foundation for studying Scientology. But what if the foundation wasn’t solid? What if it was lacking some important ingredients? What if there were more barriers to study? And what if these barriers, if taught in Scientology would actually make the students able to think for themselves?
These missing barriers to study are so glaringly obvious and so obviously dangerous to point out in the Church of Scientology that it would get you an express ride to the Ethics Officers were you to insist they were missing.
Now what could those missing elements in the Study Tech be?
Geir Isene - uncut 
Actually, the three you listed are the “three primary barriers” to study. There are many “barriers to study”. Isolating the top three primary ones (especially the MU) was LRH’s most important achievement in this area, imho.
As a side comment, I believe that “Study Tech” is a secondary level achievement in Scientology, and while important and valuable, it always seemed like a logical deduction from the fundamentals of Scientology: most notably Axiom 28 (the definition of “communication”) whose full meaning itself is reliant to a large degree on understanding Axioms 11-27.
http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part14/Chp41/pg0767.html
I believe there are three more primary barriers to study.
I believe there are many, many barriers…
– Being tired.
– Being hungry.
– Being ill.
– Being out-of-PT (present time).
– Being PTS.
– Having a PTP (present time problem).
– Having O/Ws on the subject being studied.
– Having an ARC break on the subject being studied.
– Being restimulated by the subject being studied.
– Having false data on the subject being studied.
– “Knowing it all already”.
– Distracted by the hot guy/babe across the course room.
… so many … where do we draw the line?
(Which reminds me … isn’t there a whole “Study Correction List”?)
In any event, I think the Primary Barriers to Study (whatever number there are) must have simple doingnesses that can be applied to resolve the barrier, as there are with each of the three barriers delineated by LRH.
Example: Being a “know it all” on the subject one is studying is a barrier, but there is no simple doingness that one can apply to resolve it. It is a mindset that one has to adopt … either on one’s own or through the help of others. So I wouldn’t classify it as a “Primary Study Barrier” on the order of the three listed by LRH, though there’s no question that it is a significant barrier and perhaps even senior to the other three.
God one Margaret,to the point..
I believe that in order to accurately define all the barriers to “study”, one must also define which definition of “study” one is referring to. A barrier to one aspect(definition) of “study”might not exist as a barrier to another aspect of study.
Example: one can “study” something apart from words entirely, by simple looking at it attentively.
You’re saying LRH should have done that?
No, I’m saying I believe it.
For all I know, he did define it and I’m just unaware of the reference. Possibly he left it up to us to figure out which definition applied in each instance of it’s use. Using “study tech” to do so, of course! 🙂
The biggest barrier in Studying Scientology is the datum. “LRH knows best,” as pushed by the Policy Letter KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING. Let me give you an example. Here is a sentence from the above policy letter:
“By actual record the percentages are about twenty to 100,000 that a group of human beings will dream up bad technology to destroy good technology.”
Now what is wrong with this sentence written by LRH. A person who has some familiarity with mathematics can easily see that either the word “percentage” is incorrect (should have been “ratio”), or the number 100,000 is incorrect (should have been 100). A math literate friend of mine (Ivan) questioned that in a Flag Course room and every course sup, word clearer, and Qual person told him that he had a misunderstood because “LRH can never be wrong.” When my friend (who was correct) stood his ground he got into a lot of ethics trouble. This was one of the factors that contributed to him leaving Scientology back in 1998.
How many other such minefields exist in LRH materials? The biggest one I found is “thetan is immortal” which completely goes against Buddhism. Hubbard actually denounced Buddhism on this one point (see the section INDIVIDUALITY VS. IDENTITY in SCN 8-8008). And guess what! Scientology has simply become an ego-boosting exercise devoid of compassion because of this one whopping misunderstood on Hubbard’s part. The purpose of OT levels seems to be simply to give one status and ego.
Hubbard’s Study Tech does not provide any strong enough remedy to overcome this barrier. Compare this to Buddha, who instructed his followers that Buddha’s teaching can be questioned and should be question for the sake of one’s sanity. I do not see that we are producing sane people in abundance in Scientology.
.
You are pointing to one of the three missing barriers to study right there. Another blog post coming soon…
It immediately occured to me that Geir didn’t mention “the student knows allready all about it” which is also a very important barrier. Maybe even more that those 3.
Now this is very interesting, turning it the other way. This is something I don’t like about scientologists, but I’ve never looked it as a barrier to study, which it undoubtedly is. Well, somethimes I’m not that bright on such an abstract level.
Yes. It is an important barrier – and it should have been presented as a barrier #0 and not just be buried in a Study Tape.
It IS presented as the most important barrier #0 in the first study courses one ever does, the Learning how to learn (for children) and the Basic Study Manual. The very first chapter.
I think many overlooked it and mistunderstands it.
It took me a while to fully comprehend that barrier too. I noticed that in certain fields where I thought I was an “expert” it was exactly this barrier that slowed or stopped my progress in that field!
It is really adviced to examine in all the fields where you are active in, whether you have any know-best attitude that prevents you from looking really…
It is interesting that so few get this point, don’t you think?
Maybe it should have been presented in the bulletin describing the basic barriers to study?
I agree with you Geir.
And also, books were never revised. I think it’s not that big an exception to see this in popular science that books are revised, updated, extended and so on.
Gee, when I mentioned this at FZorg some 5 years ago, KSW freaks would cut my head off.
Yeah, it’s odd how people go all emotional and religious about these things.
I must add: Leaving DM’s revisions aside, because that’s something else.
But I’ve just relized that LRH also said that the books aren’t standard tech, it’s in bulletins, so books shouldn’t be as important as bulletins.
But at the same time books are usually the first thing newcomers read and it can give them obsolette data from the very beginning.
Sorry Geir, I’m writing as things occur to me. Enough for my rambling for now!
It’s also in BSM.
IIRC, there’s an entire chapter devoted to “knowing it all already” in the BSM.
It’s beyond being a “barrier” to study. It’s a requisite to study. Unfortunately, there’s not exactly a doingness that one can do to solve it (as there are with each of the Three Barriers to Study), and so its really in a separate class of “barriers”, and should be separated out as such. Which it is.
But, as pointed out; Books are not part of Standard Tech, hence even this should have found its way to a bulletin, no?
Geir, the whole concept of “must be right” and “know best” are the subject of an entire Grade, as I’m sure you know. I think you could find pages and pages of bulletins, and many lectures, on this subject.
Should it be better emphasized as part of the overall culture in Scientology? No question. But personally, I think BSM and Student Hat do a pretty decent job of teaching it.
It’s really more a matter of getting the CoS to practice what they preach.
In my view, the culture of “know best” and arrogance is really created by a few policies, more than a missing piece of study tech.
In that study tape, if I remember right, LRH says something to the effect that it is THE FIRST LITTLE GATE THAT HAS TO BE OPENED, and he definitely gives it great importance in that lecture. It’s very strange that the datum didn’t end up in an HCOB – the official issue type that is supposed to contain ALL of the tech, per HCOB “The Hidden Data Line” (I might not have the title exactly right). Actually, it might have, with the notation “from Study Lecture…”. Even so, it should also have been in HCOB “Barriers to Study” as well.
By the way, let me take the opportunity to say how much I’ve appreciated your blog. I wish you a Happy New Year, while at the same time I can’t imagine otherwise for someone as able and as at cause as you are!
Thank you very much. It is highly appreciated 🙂
Ron also said in early times at least to agree only with what is true for you.
I beleive it was one of the cheese in the mouse-trap for the green new-comers.
I begun recently to read LRH materials again and to tell the truth I am really shocked how he puts together a sentence. The words and ideas are so twisted that I am surprised how I was able to get somehow through those materials.
He speaks like a lunatic. Thoughts placed out of concept, non-sequiture, speaking in generality which is we know from him is one of the characteristics of suppressives. Last time I’ve read something he said historically Scientology is common with Hinayana Buddhism… What…? He does not have a pale idea what is he speaking about in the first place. And that IS a great barrier in study when you have to study the material from someone who is himself does not know what is he talking about…
One missing element from study tech is although this is really a complex one, and a really high level of understanding is needed is the need for continuous comparison and evaluation of the different data you get out of the subject and check if all the data are aligned to each other.
From this point of view Scientology is a mess.
(The above example of 100.000 is a perfect one. LRH many times speaks as if someone who is in total confusion.)
The earlier data are “usually” “better” than the later ones. And they contradict with each other although the importance of studying in timeline is pressed which is in itself is stupid when present time implementation is the most important factor. If you want to learn how to repair cars you do not need to go back and study how to sculpt stone-wheels. Just the important subjects would be needed. The subject of the most recent and up to date knowledge.
Although your post is a bit of a rant IMO, you do point to one important point regarding barriers to study.
I wonder what do you mean on “rant”. All I gave are pure facts. Maybe just a draft but facts.
I meant the emotional ballast that came with the content.
I was not emotional just used some words to express that this is not just a tea afternoon break 🙂
but an actual drama 😀 which it exactly is. 😀
Afterall, exploiting countless people who call themselves Scientologists mentally and economically is quite something.
Overdriver wrote: “Ron also said in early times at least to agree only with what is true for you.”
OD, Ron said it throughout his life. There’s a section in “The Way to Happiness” (written in 1980) devoted to it. It was always at the core of the philosophy of Scientology. It’s no more “cheese in a mousetrap” than the Axioms and Factors are “cheese in a mousetrap” (although they are studied on the OT levels).
The over-arching use of KSW to apply to everything that LRH ever wrote, imho, is the basis for the CoS losing it’s way with regard to KSW vs. “thinking critically”.
One can see LRH’s intent for “standard tech” and KSW in RJ68. It was not meant to apply to policies, the general philosophy or even technical ideas like the “third party law”. It was meant to only apply to auditing and auditing procedures.
The “LRH’s word is law” approach went into serious overdrive in the 1980s and has gotten worse since. A sane church leadership would adapt and modify policies as the times demanded it … for example when something like the Cold War came to an abrupt end. Or when the Church was recognized by the IRS as a religion. Or when something like the Internet showed up and the OT levels went into the public domain.
The CoS needs to come to PT (present time).
It is true. And auditing is probably much better than the organization and ethics system. However as both were created by the same person or under his name, I am more suspicious now even with auditing.
But I am not convinced that his ideas of the upper OT levels (cliche’) are correct. As I pointed out earlier there is enlightenment on the awareness chart (not illumination as I wrote before) which is not the “enlightenment” at all. I beleive this is not the only gross mistake he made.
If you want “to be Clear on all dynamics” (cliche’) than purification is needed for sure. But look at the pride, arrogance and the lack of compassion which surrounds the whole subject of Hubbardism. You can’t purify yourself or others that way.
Vinaire, with regard to the wording of the KSW section you pointed out, I do agree with you. I’ve always felt that it was oddly worded. With that said, I think LRH’s intent and message that “only 20 out of a 100,000 suggestions were valuable” (or 1 in 5,000) comes through pretty clearly — especially since he had just pointed out that he had used and included about 20 suggestions “with long run value” in the development of Dianetics and Scientology. But I do agree it could have been worded better, and/or he should have used the word “ratio”. (I’ve done masters work in mathemetics, so the weird usage of “percentages” was pretty apparent to me as well.)
With regard to Scn 8-8008’s cause for the “lack of compassion” in Scientology, I would have to disagree. I believe the section you are referring to is:
“One of the commonest control mechanisms which has been
used on thetans is leading them to believe that when they rise
in potential they will find themselves “one with the universe.”
This is distinctly untrue. Thetans are individuals. They do not,
as they rise on the Tone Scale, merge with other individualities.
They have the power of becoming anything they wish while
still retaining their individuality. They are, first and foremost,
themselves.”
I emphasized a sentence which I think is pretty critical — regaining the power of choice. If one wants to “become one with the universe” or exist in a state of Nirvana, one can certainly choose to. But the critical point is that one has become able to causatively choose once again. It’s not a pre-ordained edict that one must become “one with everything” if one chooses not to. Further, the existence of ARC=U, being in the axioms, puts them at the very core of Scientology. And ARC=U, if anything, is a study and exercise in compassion. To consider the essence of the subject of Scientology to be “devoid of compassion” is, imho, simply inaccurate.
With that said, there’s no doubt that the organization has lost compassion. This “lack of compassion”, imho, is largely caused by a handful of organizational policies which put stats ahead of anything else. These handful of policies have been overemphasized to such a degree that it has become acceptable to bankrupt Scientologists, recruit them into a game (staff or SO) which does not align with their goals and purposes, and generally put image ahead of substance.
How all the “statuses” and “levels” became the be-all and end-all of the Church of Scientology, in my view, is a result of this overemphasis on stats, wealth, and image, i.e. the overemphasis on these policies, to the exclusion of the core message(s) in Scientology — core message(s) which are centered around compassion.
Good post.
I do however believe LRH was not truthful when he said that only 20 ideas had “long run value” – there seems to be several important ideas originated from others – including aspects of the Study Tech which is the topic here.
I’ve read the list from Alan Walters (who worked with LRH in the 1960s, and seemed to be the biggest proponent of this argument, before and while creating Knowledgism).
Do you think in 1965, when LRH wrote KSW#1, there were more than 20?
I do. There are many more references to this than Walters such as John Galusha and other early researcers.
When one looks around on the internet one can see large collections from where LRH took his ideas. Even the word Scientology came from an earlier very similar subject.
And not only KSW is “oddly worded”. I beleive there are no 3 pages in his writings where you could not find something which is oddly worded.
Just look at some basic terms. Valuable final PRODUCT is oddly worded when you speak in terms of people. Manufacturing is oddly worded when you speak about people. Start is oddly worded when you are in the SO and hear it 20 times a day, as if you would be a machine with a production button on your head, etc…
Scientology is just simply inhuman when you look at the ACTUAL result.
There are a few good man getting out of the process. And then what? There are other good man getting out in volumes from other spheres of the world. The difference? Those others don’t beat the drum and their chest on how good they are or on how out-ethics you are daring to question them for example on forced abortions or on stating being Maitreya Bodhisattva or just on “20 to 100,000”.
(IMO Pathetic).
In reality Hubbard took some working psychoteraphy (other source) and the E-meter (other source). After getting to Clear – which is who knows what – he begun to apply some sci-fi and some esoteric stuff from Crowley and Blawatsky in some pseudo-scientific form.
The thing called Scientology is basically a self-help movement. Others achieved a lot as well in this field. Hubbard took it further creating a religion out of this self-help cultish stuff.
And maybe he is not the mastermind behind all this “Project Scientology” as other projects emerged at the same time around that continent with strange psychiatric and intelligence connections (just like Hubbard himself was an intelligent agent) and maybe the whole subject of Scientology is just a project to map the human mind for further mind-control purposes. That’s the whole story in a nutshell.
And why are people so attached to the subject and saying constantly “yeah but it works” because that’s (“it’s working”) what Hubbard repeated repeated repeated hypnotically a thousand times and because all the main elements are “gently” 🙂 pointing towards making you into a robot, a (valuable final) product.
That is your way in Scientology from raw meat to product… 😀 Technology makes wonders. You, happy machine, welcome into the factory 😀
Sorry, for being a bit off. And as well sorry, if I am not 100% correct. In that case I will apologise. Contrary to what was tought by Hubbard.
You’re not a bit off, you’re way off. Your general opinions on Scientology should be posted elsewhere and not under this post regarding Study Tech.
Was he untruthful, or was he simply stating his evaluation and opinion? My point is, to say he was”untruthful” tends to suggest he was deliberately lying. That is not the only possibility, for “untruthfullness” in all it’s meanings.
I do not imply intention behind that statement, only that he did not speak the truth.
I tend to agree with you Valkov. I do not think that LRH was being purposely “untruthful” when he made that remark. It was simply his evaluation/opinion at the time he wrote it.
With that said, I do think that LRH was wearing his “executive hat” when he wrote KSW#1, and his stern tone level at the moment (and at later moments when he re-issued it) colored the overall message with an angry tone which hasn’t served Scientology well, imho.
I do think that if KSW#1 had been contained to just “the tech of auditing”, however, as it was originally intended (instead of including all policy, opinions, advices, etc.), we might have a very different CoS than the one we have today.
Question: “What makes you think that self (thetan) is immortal? Is that really true?”
.
I know the question was not addressed to me, but you always make very good points, so let me know you my opinion on that which is that immortality is just a concept of our present consciousness. Thetan in Scientology means rather the self which is an illusory thing. Being an illusory thing I suppose it can’t be immortal. But regarding the concepts we can use right now I can assume that we are “immortal”, where I must make an accent that “we” is not defined as our selves.
The question is unanswerable in any objective sense, and ultimately ends up how one defines “thetan”.
I’ve always loved the way the Factors buildup to explain existence, but I also feel that “In the beginning and forever, is the decision and the decision is TO BE” included LRH’s personal opinion on the “forever”ness of the being.
And I grant LRH his personal beliefs.
It’s a question that each person has to answer for themselves.
Margaret,
Dalai Lama essentially says the same thing in some interviews he’s done. That the core of a person exists “In the beginning and forever”.
Valkov, I do personally agree that the “foreverness” of each of us is built-in by definition. And only goes away when time itself (the succession of altered nows, as created by us being(s)) goes away.
Vinaire..THAT is a good question,(that i think would be a great blog posting) but it isn’t really on the subject here:)
Yeah, hubbard knows best…Annother example for this is the following.
In the Policy about “Demonstration” he claims that he developed a datum saying
that “If it (a physical object) cannot be drawn in two dimensions, it cannot be built.” Very clever eval. What he does not say is that it is (since 150 years or longer) a usual practice (especially in mechanical engineering, but also in building construction) to make up technical drawings in two dimensions as a basis for the mechanic to build it.
a.) This data in this policy is completely useless for a SCN student because
every student who is not trained in technical drawings cannot follow what he is talking about. Furthermore one does not need to understand WHY drawings are made up this way, he just needs to learn how to READ the drawing correctly. Then he can build the product.
b) That LRH developed the datum is simply not true. It is probably his personal cognition, because it is being practiced since hundreds of years.
ARC
There is a difference between something having been practiced and a datum indicating it actually has to be that way.
ok, you are right. I propose you make up you mind on LRH developments in word clearing tech here:
http://www.lermanet.com/exit/studytech/
already written by Virginia Waddy in 1888!!
ARC
Excellent link. Thanks.
I don’t have the answer for you, but it seems to me there may be significant differences between stating that “engineering drawings are drawn in 2 dimensions”, and stating that “If it CAN’T be drawn in 2 dimensions, it CAN’T be built.”
I do not get the same meaning from those 2 statements. The way he put it, it is a delimiter. And it may have been his own cognition; it may also have been cognited by others before him, but never recorded as such.
I guess I fail to see your point.
Ok, Valkow, let me be more specific. If you read this data you could get the idea that he developed the datum and engineers follows him by applying it. (Its not written but it comes across to me).
Now: There is an omitted data. Drawings are made up in two dimensions usually in THREE VIEWS. Its a flat projection.The practical WHY for this is, because it shows the mechanic every HIDDEN, corner, edges, parts, fretwork,holes, u.s.o. and it LEADS to the exact sequence how single parts of the plant/machines are being produced and how its being assembled. This is important. You do not start bulding a house beginning with the roof. (logic)
This can´t be achieved with a 3 dimension drawing.
1) the above must be cleared with a student in a course
room so he gets a rough idea what LRH is talking about.
Its wasted time, because its only from interest for an engineer or mechanic who deals with the subject daily.
Therefore I said its useless data.
2)
If LRH says, “It cannot be build” I understand that it cannot be build in general. (No assembling possible).
The key point is here that the engineer WHILE constructing in his mind and drawing his ideas on a sheet of paper he will AUTOMATICLY realize (based on the rules how to construct and draw) that it can or cannot be build. But construction and assembling are TWO different things.
You see, one can have the cognition LRH had, but not giving the frame around does not lead to understanding.
I experienced the following:
30 years ago I have been working on a machine, It was perfectly drawn on the paper and theoretical functioning. Almost finished I found out that the key part of the machine could not be assembled, because there was not enough space within the machine for the mechanic to fix the part and handle the tools neccessary. And this happened just because the engineer who constructed the machine hat a lack of practical experience. ARC
Design Engineering and manufacturing engineering are two very different subjects. A design engineer conceives of the configuration of how something desirable would appear. He computes the various dimensions of the design based on requirements and material properties. The manufacturing engineer, on the other hand, looks at the manufacturability of the design, and how it can be put together with existing resources.
There is a lot more involved here than what meets the eye. I work in the Aircraft industry where extreme precision and considerations of safety are part of the requirements.
.
ok, of course i speak about manufacturing engineering.
It’s entirely possible that Hubbard knew 20:100,000 = .2%, but decided that stating it as “20:100,000” would communicate better and more graphically to more people.
Hubbard was never much interested in venerating “sacred cows”, as in when he adopted the word “scientology”, which is a word combined from a Latin combining form and a Greek combining form. This kind of “hybridization”, the mixing of Greek and Latin roots, was traditionally considered a no-no in Western learned circles.
Hubbard was just not very anal-retentive about things like that, preferring to convey his meaning as accurately as he could, rather than following some kind of narrow authoritarian convention just for the sake of doing so.
Yes, I agree that Hubbard, with his grip of mathematics, could “know”, that 20:100,000 = .2% – ROFL (in fact .02%).
20:100,000 = .02% is correct.
.
A friend of mine got into ethics trouble for pointing out a mathematical error in KSW1. That was his route out of Scientology a long time ago.
.
The insanity in Scientology is the belief that whatever Hubbard has written is 100% correct. The Scientologists try to fit everything into what Hubbard has said. This goes against the following rationale:
http://vinaire.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/looking-at-the-philosophy-project/#comment-6801
.
well said vinaire
Part of me doesn’t want to comment, in case I get the “glaringly obvious” answer(s) wrong, but part of me wants to take part in this little guessing game. I’m not a Scn, never have been, but have been researching the philosophy and organizations built around it for about 7 years. But I try to look at both sides as much as I am able to. So with that in mind…
I’m gonna pick “Questioning the validity of the information” for $500, Geir. And perhaps the lack of what is deemed “verbal tech” can also be detrimental; discussing what one is learning with others develops better understanding and clarification, but it can also lead to *gasp* questions popping up.
Barriers to _study_… if we assume that the source material IS actually correct, not being able to discuss, question, or even compare what one is studying to other information, even if it is from the same source, definitely inhibits critical thinking
The definition of study, both noun and verb, includes “investigation” and “reflection”. Reflection likely does happen in study tech, just don’t do too much of it. As for investigation… not a good idea. Just be happy with “reading, reflection, and regurgitation”.
I feel like these may not be what you were talking about, but hey… they’re important regardless.
Well, you are on the right path 🙂
Stay tuned.
Lack of interest/motivation/alignment with goals?
True, that would be a fourth one missing. There are three more.
That Is what I am finding myself with what I am learning via the Venus project.
I see things missing in the tech. That is why I been trying to bridge the tech and the VP but soon that will end and it is being reduced by me even now.
I can’t do this alone so I might just go back to making people aware of the VP.
There is stuff missing in the tech. It kept stubbleing over it when I was in the church. They dont teach about personal rights or boundaries. They are so money oriented and never teach the down side of money.
They don’t teach that there are other forms of exchange besides money.
There is a lot missing in it and some could be due to it was not known at the time it came to be but some was. The money part is the biggest out tech in the church.
But it is hard to point out and I get crabby when I try to show people the brainwash of the church and society is stronger than the truth. IT is simple to me but not so simple to millions. Star Trek is Based on the Venus Project. Not many know that.
I think the tech should be totally free (and it is,on the net),if some one put labor in there should be some exchange.I cant C what the Venus Project has 2 do with any thing?! It is a NWO project and Ron said that we didn’t need any more of those;)
“It’s a very simple remedy. And that’s-just make sure that the remedy is passed along. That’s all.Don’t horde it, don’t hold it; and if you ever do use any Black Dianetics, use it on the guy who pulled Scientology out of sight and made it so it wasn’t available. Because he’s the boy who would be electing himself “The New Order.” And we don’t need any more new orders. All those orders, as far as I am concerned, have been filled” LRH (“Old” PDC #20)REMOVED FROM THE “NEW” TAPES…
I will not always be here on guard.
The stars twinkle in the Milky Way
And the wind sighs for songs
Across the empty fields of a planet
A Galaxy away.
You won’t always be here.
But before you go,
Whisper this to your sons
And their sons —
“The work was free.
Keep it so.”
L. RON HUBBARD
Off the top of my head, is Studying the same as Learning? One of the major barriers to a person learning something, is when s/he believes s/he already knows it. I don’t think this is part of Study Tech, but it is definitely part of Scientology and something LRH spoke of in lectures, as well as others going way back have always mentioned as a barrier to learning.
Because of course if you believe you already know something, you won’t even begin to “study” it.
The inability to observe and obnose can also be a barrier to study/learning.
This one is a primary barrier and is in fact covered in the Study tapes and may as well have been one of the barriers to study as presented by LRH. With this one, I now count 8 primary barriers to study.
“These barriers to study makes up the foundation of Hubbard’s study tech which in turn makes up the foundation for studying Scientology. But what if the foundation wasn’t solid? What if it was lacking some important ingredients? What if there were more barriers to study? And what if these barriers, if taught in Scientology would actually make the students able to think for themselves?”
Geir did you do the “Student Hat”?!:))
And your point is?
4 any one interested i made some replies on FB..
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=628233910#!/permalink.php?story_fbid=165882150123217&id=100001660122437¬if_t=share_reply
If you remember his rants about black and white photography (in the “Study-Tapes”),wanting to learn COLOR photography,you know what to do…
…And your point is?
4 any one interested in my replies 2 this,its on FB..
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=628233910#!/permalink.php?story_fbid=165882150123217&id=100001660122437
Your links to FB don’t work to me. I’m not an FB user, I don’t know if that is a prerequisite to read your replies.
LRH was a very amateur photographer. Very very amateur. Check out his contemporaries. Although he thought he was a great photographer. What an illusion.
Did he ever claim to be anything but an amateur photographer?
The whole venture into the Sea Project conveys an attitude that any able person can learn new skills from scratch, and he encouraged a “professional” attitude.
I think it was simply an interest, a hobby, of his.
I believe you are right. That the church later tried to elevate him to guru in many areas is another matter.
LRH mentioned ones, “Scientology is not perfect but is the best we have”
It is very easy to criticize something, but why did you not develop the tech yourself ? or even something better ?
For me it works, and I have never ever seen a better tech.
Not criticizing “the tech” (as a generality), but seeking to make everything I encounter better if I can. Stay tuned for next blog post.
LRH criticized everything I know except auditors and more or less Scientologists. Did he have overts and witholds on such a high scale? We have some far better things than Scientology but he made people blind on that.
He even put illumination below Clear on the Bridge and said it is the same as of what the eastern sages were speaking of. Nonsense.
If you go spiritual. And are looking for answers you are not a mechanism. So when someone gives the word “technology” in your mouth and implants it in your mind than that person is either ignorant or wants to make you a robot.
It is like implanting thoughts into your mind like in the movie Inception.
And IMO that’s why we have now this situation with the Church. It was a gradient scale result.
And what do you think Geir is just doing?
VERY,VERY, TRUE !!!
First, I think criticism is not so bad and black than it is painted by LRH.
I think one of his reasons to make criticism a bad name was to save his own ideas and empire.
If you can solve things without criticism it is great and elegant but if criticism has a ground and hard earned and is needed than it must be said.
Otherwise it would be like commend the nice clothes of the king who is naked. And that is what is expected of a Scientologist in the universe of Scientology.
Geir sees some outpoints and communicates these outpoints. IMO it can’t even be called as criticism. It is evolution.
Let’s say it would happen in the scientific world. This would not be a problem. Alll you need to do is just prove that you are correct.
Some would say the world is flat and you would come out with the idea and say that it is not true, and that the Earth is actually round and not the center of the universe but is actually going around the Sun. Only those would say you are critical or would call you a heretic who do not want to give up their Status Quo.
Another point is what is missing from study tech is the examination of the validity and correctness of the datum. In Scientology or in Study tech the validity is never questioned. I mean generally. This was something I recognised very early. So if you would read a psychiatry book with study tech than with only the study tech in mind you would only go for misunderstandings in the text if you would have some disagreement for example but would not question the authority of the subject. You would just go ahead with electroshocking the patient.
This was a reply to profant’s post (2011-01-03 at 15:26)
I believe you understood the exact opposite of what I was implying.
Recognizing the outpoints in data is a very important part of learning. Such outpoints then lead to further investigation until one achieves consistency.
Very true.
Why “consistency”? I would have guessed “completeness of understanding”.
Because no manifestation itself can be absolute truth. The closest one may come to truth is perceiving consistency in what is manifested. Beyond consistency would be as-isness and complete disappearance of manifestations. What would then remain is unknowable per the essays on my blog.
.
My biggest barriers to studying are distraction and procrastination.
One barrier would be the outpoints in the material one is studying.
Another barrier would be the outpoints in one’s thinking, which may come from looking through a “thought filter.”
One more barrier would be not looking at what is actually there, but this is due to the outpoints in one’s thinking, such as, adding to what is there, or associating the wrong things together.
.
I wonder if such a thought filter may be a result of accepting a contradictory datum or a though-stopping datum for that area.
Anything assumed would become part of the thought filter. Thus, all the considerations that one holds make up one’s filter.
And that is also the definition of SELF.
SELF is the ‘center of considerations’ in metaphysics, analogous to ‘center of mass’ in physics.
SELF is the ultimate filter.
.
In Scientology, having an “open mind” is considered to be wrong. It was so graded on the Aptitude Test. This always puzzled me, and I just put it aside, thinking that I will worry about later.
How many of you think that one must have a closed mind in Scientology? How does it compare with the core ideas of Study tech?
.
An open mind can be both good and bad. It depends on the level of openness, intelligence and interest and probably some other factors LRH did not said in which precise meaning he used the word…
If one wants to arrive to the other side of the river one needs to have a commitment to the vehicle and not jump around changing from time to time. And this is expected in most schools or traditions. The main difference is in credibility and authenticity. If there is a ferryman who took many souls to the other side – or at least you can be sure that he is a genuine ferryman – than of course you should trust him. On the other side if someone comes who did not show up any single individual – or you can’t verify that he is a genuine ferryman – than it is better to be open minded.
For example Karmapa is not my master but if you check, you can see that he is authentic.
Now, if comes someone saying he is Maitreya but does not teach Buddhism, invalidates Buddhism, does not have any connection with the tradition, even does not recognised, even not as a tulku (a reincarnated buddhist teacher) than it is safer to be open-minded towards him.
Even if there are some things which are workable in his technology…
Study tech is very useful but it would be desirable to be more simplified and complemented. I am waiting Geir’s next post.
Wasn’t it LRH that said something to the effect: “there’s nothing wrong with an open mind, as long as its not full of holes”? I think LRH was hoping for a balance between being “too open” and “too closed” minded.
There’s no doubt that people have to have “an open mind” to explore Scientology in the first place.
There’s also no doubt, imho, that KSW#1 being applied to everything LRH ever said or wrote, would lead to close-mindedness.
My understanding of that phrase as used by Hubbard is, “A person whose mind is in a fixed state such that he cannot come to a conclusion no matter how much data he sees about the subject.”
It is a mind that can’t make a decision. Thus never reaches “closure”, thus is a perpetually”open mind”. Possibly related to the idea of “theetie-weetie”.
Hubbard should have said “perpetual” open mind then, but he didn’t. This is misleading. The idea that Hubbard is infallible then pushes people toward justifying what Hubbard said.
.
Even Hubbard, especially Hubbard, did not say he was infallible, He said he was only a human being.
The “infallibility” idea is an additive placed into the scene by others.
Perhaps it’s what Evaluators call an “added inapplicable datum”? I’m not familiar with Data Series that much, but isn’t that it?
That is another one of those inconsistencies of Hubbard, because he did encourage the notion of his infallibility. Take a look at HYMN OF ASIA and several Adance magazines. I was on Flag and was aware of ubbard’s instructions behind it..
.
I think it may have been said already here, or at least alluded to, that a student would have to have a purpose or intention or interest (all of a kind, essentially) in what was being studied. That would be a primary barrier, too. Enough of this element, in fact, can get you pretty well past the other barriers. So it ranks about even with point #0.
Great topic Geir!
Firstly @vinaire … You mention the ratio/percentage sentence Ron used … there are other definitions although I do understand the most common usage of percentage is ‘ a rate or amount out of 100’. There is also another one which is ‘any proportion or share in relation to a whole’. While it is quite obvious that the 100,000 figure is a nice round figure & not accurate although it gives one an idea or understanding of the concept … which brings me to my next point.
2) One can read something literally … this is a definite barrier and throughout the years the ‘literal’ term was used to degrade or make individuals wrong for not agreeing to someone else’s ‘concept’. This is very common in the church now and one has to toe the line on virtually every area of the philosophy. In other words, one has to AGREE to someone else’s viewpoints … this, I believe, is NOT what LRH wanted.
3) On the subject of ‘literalness’: I had a number of students I used to Sup on the PRD who were quite literal. These students tended to be overly long on course, very ‘significant’ in their manner, and would get into tremendous word chains in order to understand a simple concept. Again, this is a case manifestation, or in some cases was a result of a ‘crashing mu’ which held many erroneous concepts in place.
4) Crashing MUs … I found this to be somewhat rare on most students, but once the ‘chain’ was tracked back, the result was a student with much less mass and quite ‘released’.
5)Another very common but more subtle barrier are WORDS themselves. Words can be and are very restimulative to some individuals and can create a vast amount of manifestations whether it be a word used in oral or written form. These reactions are handled at various points on the ‘bridge’ … training & auditing. A simple example would be TRs – ‘Being there’ can be restimulative for many, Bullbaiting on a specific phrase or word can be very restimulative until flattened. ‘Flattening’ would be akin to reducing charge connected with that word or phrase to zero. Dichotomies also tend to be very restimulative in individuals. Not only do they bring in mass, they can have a person ‘viewing’ something entirely different from what actually IS.
6) ‘Know best’ or ‘know it already’ – very common amongst students of other philosophies. I found this especially prevalent in university students … but hey, we all thought we were pretty smart at that age 😛 This ‘know best’ or ‘know it already’ concept is a real barrier just as it could be if an ‘ex’ scientologist went to study some other subject.
7) Significance vs. conceptual understanding: One may have partial understanding or have some significance connected with a word but may not have conceptual understanding. While he may feel he does understand it, when it comes to application, it may fall short.
Which brings me to my last point:
8) What one ‘understands’ a word, phrase, sentence, object, sign, omen, etc, etc, etc to mean is at HIS awareness level and nothing more. This is HIS perception and is true for him. Right or wrong does not enter into it … it is simply HIS understanding. Of course this can manifest in all manner of misduplication, arguments, wars, etc., and can also result in strong groups, friendships and alliances. As a person moves up in awareness, his ‘understanding’ changes. Changes occur minute to minute depending on what a person is confronted with in life & relationships, and these manifestations can disappear just as quickly.
One’s understanding/perception/awareness is an evolution, or I suppose more exactly, is a de-evolution – A removal or change in what composes a being to a more simple existence with the potential & choice to create & be as complex as he chooses. At this point in time, this complexity is also a barrier to understanding but thankfully it is a situation that can be remedied 🙂
Quicksilver wrote: Firstly @vinaire … You mention the ratio/percentage sentence Ron used … there are other definitions although I do understand the most common usage of percentage is ‘ a rate or amount out of 100′. There is also another one which is ‘any proportion or share in relation to a whole’. While it is quite obvious that the 100,000 figure is a nice round figure & not accurate although it gives one an idea or understanding of the concept … which brings me to my next point.
From Dictionary.com:
per·cent·age
–noun
1. a rate or proportion per hundred.
2. an allowance, commission, or rate of interest calculated by percent.
3. a proportion in general: Only a small percentage of the class will graduate with honors.
4. gain; benefit; profit; advantage.
When percentage is used as a proportion in general only, it does not use numbers. I think you are trying to justify an error on part of Hubbard. This is just my personal opinion.
It is ok for a person to be wrong. Nobody is perfect. Absolutes are unattainable.
.
There are many references in books and lectures as to the volume of research data available for one to look at in order to validate various points. I was never able to see this research. This bothered me. You may see something work once or twice, or even dozens of times, but that does not mean it is a scientific truth and works all of the time. I would like to be able to see the studies and the times when it didn’t work. There is no way for most people to do this as there is no transparency with the research and bad results are hidden.
There is a great stigma connected to looking at “other practices” when you are involved in organized Scientology which may even make you ineligible for auditing. Since losing the shackles of the the church, I have been able to be much more effective in handling various situations in my life as I have allowed myself to look unbiasedly at anything that might best help me, and not limit myself.
The Scientology courserooms promote blind acceptance of anything LRH. You can not pass a Method 4 wordclearing if you disagree, you have targets that you must meet and you must resign yourself to “how could this be true?” in order to complete the course. If you do not agree you will be in endless wordclearing, ethics, etc.
I also have found “know it already” to be particularly key and feel it should have been given greater billing.
Thank you for another thought-provoking post. I love being able to think!
One other point: the key question (Do you have any doubts or reservations…?) I feel it is good to keep a little doubt or uncertainty in order to be open to other viepoints coming in that may have validity. This emphasis on “Total Certainty” or “never again…: or “All ARC Breaks…” or All PTSness…” , the endless procession of absolutes which were unquestionable, was stifling to free thought.
I like that!
.
You point to valid points. Thanks for the comment. And; You are welcome.
@ Grateful
Sorry to hear your experience in that courseroom. I can definitely say that I did not run my academy that way, nor did I wordclear that way. My purpose was to consult the person’s understanding and to turn out trained individuals who could APPLY what they had learned in life. If they could not apply, then it would have been a big fail on my part.
Unfortunately, what is turned out of the church nowadays is an other-determined broken spirit who is unable to enjoy the fruits of his/her own observations.
How would you handle it in your courseroom if someone disagreed with a key concept? If it were not true for them?
As a word clearer I addressed such situations by getting the person look at that concept from all different angles, and get all relevant information about the area of that concept, until he could settle with an interpretation of that concept that he was happy with. As a word clearer I never forced a concept on anyone, including myself.
.
I addressed it like Vinaire.
The only exception was when clearing process/auditing commands and training on how to run these.
I found that as a person’s ‘awareness’ changes, be it in Scientology or not, decisions or understandings on various subjects change.
A cognition on some subject on Tuesday may be looked at much differently after a session on Wednesday.
To Quicksilver and Vinaire,
Thank you. The reason I asked is that I hope to be able to train again because I love to audit.
You are right. Observation MUST be turned off which goes along with the arrogant attitude that you have all the answers so there is no need to look further.
You express these points really well.
.
@Vinaire
I have no reason to justify anything …. my point was that there ARE other definitions which could fit.
It is simply noticing similarities & differences … if I saw any mention of the word ‘percentage’ as meaning one thing, I would be reserving myself to an awfully small window. I prefer to open it wide & come to my own understanding. If in the future I change or expand my view, so be it.
That may be ok in general, but in this particular case your argument does not apply. It is an error made by Hubbard that can mislead people.
.
In what direction could it mislead people? How?
Hubbard used two numbers that do not go with the definition of percentage. Now one may justify by applying another definition of percentage, which is general but does not use 2 numbers, and mix the two definitions to get some sort of understanding, which may do.
However, the PR that Hubbard is infallible guides people toward the justification as above away from precision of definitions, and mixing of two different definitions.
.
Vin, if you ever discover a formula by which you can communicate 100% without even accidentally “misleading” people, you should patent it! Because I don’t think you can do it using human languages.
(Geir, I couldn’t resist throwing in the bit about the “patent”. 🙂
Mention patent again, and I will ban you for…. at least a minute or two.
Can’t wait Geir’s next post.
Meanwhile I may add a consideration about Styudy Tech. I’m not goin to discuss the importance of clearing up words and the other mentioned barriers. They are precious to know, and their application results in a gtreatly improved literacy. It is the end product stated as “ability to study any subject” that I question.
I was feeling that way too when I graduated from the Student Hat – “I can study anything!”. But how much of that was just ‘illusion’? Not a bad illusion, by the way, because the idea to be unable to study something may well be the first barrier, and giving the illusion to be able to study anything makes somebody willing to at least try to learn something that maybe he would not even have tried to learn othervise.
But is this ability to learn any subject a reality? By observation of myself and other Scientologists, no.
I didn’t find it an illusion for myself or the students that I had in my academy.
I can understand it if the student had no interest in the first place. Hell, there are some subjects that I have no interest at all in learning, BUT, if I did, the study technology would help and give a good basis for learning that subject.
In the practical sense, reading reams of paper & books/nomenclature are only a small portion of the totality of a subject. For myself, I would rather get my hands dirty thru application than burning the midnight oil on a book. I can only read so much before I want to DO.
The primary barrier to education/study is the lack of opportunity to do so.
hehe, nice one.
I think the most basic thing in the subject of study is the material itself. It’s soundness, it’s quality.
We can see the trend in the wog world to make better materials for study and they are working hard to make software and other tools with which you are able to produce better presentations, better materials for any purposes.
The material itself has to be able to overcome you the barriers of study. At least those mentioned in the basic study materials, like misunderstood word, lack of mass and too steep gradient.
And the material have to be clear, not overcomplicated, free of errors and must be able to fullfill it’s mission. For example a cooking book written by a shoemaker who never cooked properly or a book which does not have all the needed ingredients listed or does not give a precise one by one steps in the correct order or it is not clear what size of spoon you must use, or gives ingredients which can’t be bought in the country you live, etc… is a basic barrier for you to cook or to learn how to cook. That is most basic than the misunderstood word or anything else you look for in the student.
This development can be found in the wog world. People give feedback on software for example what function they would like to see in the next version, etc… And so there is progress, there is evolution. Usually they are more smart together with the developer group than the developer group on it’s own.
You are hitting nails here. Good one.
Sorry, I don’t remember specifics, but I believe LRH talked about this sort of thing on the study tapes. He may even have called such poorly written materials suppressive – intentionally so or otherwise. Those study lectures really have a wealth of wisdom that gets virtually ignored in the course rooms, including the idea that you don’t HAVE to look up every word as long as you know you are going by one – i.e. you are free to judge for yourself! And then, if you get into trouble (mu phenomenon), he says, you can always go back.
Similarly, he also stresses “evaluation of information” – I think that was the name of the lecture – once again, meaning that you can essentially ignore what you deem as unimportant to your purposes. I’ve seen Scn students MADE into poor students in Scn course rooms because they get so paranoid about having to place great importance on fully clearing every word (for example, Remimeo section terms, in upper left corner).
Anyway, there is a lot in those lectures that is basically on the theme of not being so literal and using your own judgement in HOW you are studying – it depends on your purpose, etc. Bottom line is that he was not as dogmatic as study tech came to be interpreted. (Or maybe he became more authoritarian about it himself, as he seems to have done as regards other aspects of Scientology – comparing his attitude and approach from earlier years to later ones. At the top of the Chart of Human Evaluation, the person is always seeking new ideas, or words to that effect.)
On a similar note, there’s also the matter of verbal data vs. verbal tech. I think (or hope) that it was only verbal TECH that LRH didn’t want, but that got interpreted to mean no verbal DATA, i.e. no freedom to talk about it all, the way we do on these blogs. It’s really a freeing feeling to be able to do so!
I think the important aspects of the Study Tapes should have found their way into Standard Tech, i.e. into bulletins – like the barriers to study.
When it comes to materials to be studied, they must be laid out very simply starting from the premises (fundamentals) used in that subject, or they should provide reference to them. Materials should be explained so simply that one should be able to think with them.
People who are able to think with mathematics are very good in mental math. They can see many connections among quantities that are not very obvious to others. At one time I decided to put Math fundamentals together in a series of papers. I had a lot of fun doing that. Those papers are still there on my math web site that may be accessed through my blog.
I made an extensive study of Hubbard’s Axioms, Logics, and Factors in Geir’s Forum. The very first Factor inspired me to investigate the concept of BEGINNING. And from that investigation came out a number of essays that are on my blog. The current essay that I am working on and off is on THE NATURE OF BEING.
The point I am making is that fundamentals should always be questioned and by doing that further inroads in knowledge may be made. This goes along with what some have stated here that there is no absolute certainty. They are right.
By the way, the best think that has ever happened in the field of knowledge is the invention of hypertext, and the emergence of Wikipedia.
.
Amen.
Scientology is 2 things, a collectivistic effort to control and an individualistic tool box 2 increase personal freedom/understanding.(every thing in this universe comes in pairs)It is a method 4 control and as well to free…
1. I run a school, and before even starting to get into “the three barriers” the major GIANT barrier is not wanting to study in the first place. This barrier is easily 10 times bigger and more prevalent than anything else. Kids are “sentenced” to 9 or 12 years of education with no purpose and with no ties to any practical application or to their survival or immediate life. It’s a miracle that anyone learns anything in this environment. Once a kid actually WANTS to learn he will usually do so, even with close to zero knowledge of the various barriers. Think about it: every child learns a new language in his first years WITHOUT a dictionary, WITHOUT looking up words, WITHOUT falling asleep over MUs.
2. A second barrier that comes to mind is poorly written material, or incomprehensible material. If the reader does not simply spot this point for what it is, endless confusion can result. example: “space is a viewpoint of dimension”. Which definition of “of”? Wich definition of “dimension”? If the reader assumes it must be correctly written a lot of confusion can occur.
3. The material covers a conclusion or rule (an abstration based on observation of a reality). The actual observation is not included with the material. The above example of space is a viewpoint of dimension is a good example of this as well. What was he actually looking at specifically when he made this conclusion?
4. Sentence structure. Long sentences with numerous sub-clauses, especially when tied together in a convoluted fashion create confusion. Try reading Thomas Paine or other material from that time period. Even though every word is easy to understand a long task of decoding is necessary before understanding it.
5. Material written poorly or compiled poorly so that prior knowledge is assumed but not covered. This also includes material where knowledge of external circumstances or situations is assumed but where these are not expressed. Example: again, reading Thomas Paine, where it is assumed that the reader has a knowledge of the (then) current arguments being forwarded in political matters. Example: LRH talking about current situations in the world or the state of the subject which later readers do not know.
6. False information in the material. Example: extensive scientific research has been done to prove such and such, when in fact no such scientific research exists. This may not qualify exactly as a barrier to study, but it certainly leads to stupidity and false conclusions.
7. Lack of knowledge in how to evaluate data. This is a continuation of the point above. If study is supposed to lead to an advancement in ones knowledge of what is true and a betterment of survival, then the ability to evaluate competently what qualifies as truth is essential. For instance, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Example: the claim of past lives existing is a case where extraordinary proof shold be required by the reader. Where is the proof? If the scientific method has been applied, where can I read about it? Where can I myself go though the original research? Where has it been duplicated? What metods were used?
8. A barrier particularly applicable to Scientology: the pragmatic fallacy. In short “if it works then it must be true”. Just because auditing works it does not automatically follow that the theory and philosophy behind it is therefore true. Just because running for instance past lives produces gain does not automatically prove they actually exist. And more to the point, just because a person has had personal case gain does not necessarily mean that everything LRH says is true.
9. The barriers to study mainly deal with what is called decoding, i.e. getting what is being said. This in no way guarantees that the person has really understood a) the VIEWPOINT it was being said from b) how exactly the data applies c) how it ties together with other data d) what seniority this data has in relation to other data (Essay on Management and ARC for instance being serior to the ethics presence policy idea of being able to get mad)
Ivro
That’s spot on. I will group this and other suggestions for simplicity and add another barrier in my upcoming blog post.
Ivro said: 1. I run a school, and before even starting to get into “the three barriers” the major GIANT barrier is not wanting to study in the first place. This barrier is easily 10 times bigger and more prevalent than anything else. Kids are “sentenced” to 9 or 12 years of education with no purpose and with no ties to any practical application or to their survival or immediate life…
This is very true. I consider it to be a situation that needs to be thoroughly evaluated. My premise is that every child naturally wants to know and learn the materials in his area of interest. This situation can only arise if the child does not feel secure in his present environment and his attention is distraction because of some problem of major concern to him or her. This goes into the area of how a child is being raised by his parents, and in such cases, most likely, parents have their own situation. Not having a stable family environment makes a big difference. Abusive environment will be a big distraction where one’s desires and aspirations are not acknowledged but are invalidated or discouraged instead.
I believe this area to get into many social factors.
I am very interested in finding out how you have addressed this situation among children in your school of not wanting to study.
Regards,
Vinaire
I homeschooled my kids and learned a lot along the way about what works best. I did find it true that people have different styles of learning. I started out trying to use what had worked for me, but found, with experimentation, that other things worked better for others. We followed the interests of each child. We tried to help them get involved in real-life situations where they would see and experience for themselves. My son was/is an avid sports fan. He learned a lot of math by figuring out various statistics. He learned alphabetizing by looking up various ball players in his book. I didn’t tell him to do this; he was just interested. All of us spent a lot of time looking for quality materials at the library and we would try to get several different authors with different viewpoints. We also sought out first hand information. If I did one thing right, it would have been stressing the idea of questioning and evaluating what you read and hear – the ability to disagree. I am extremely proud of the way my kids stand up to expert opinion.
And we did look up words that we needed to, but it was not cumbersome at all because it was just trying to figure out what something meant.
In addition to Ron’s stuff in the study tapes and TWTH, I found two educational researchers/authors to be particularly helpful to me: John Taylo Gatto and John Holt.
This is really excelent.
My biggest gains “from Scientology” come from posts like this 🙂
again, like my last post elsewhere on this site tonight, I didn’t read the comments as yet, but again I find I have something to say on this (sorry if I covered what others may have here….)
The answer of course is “conceptual thinking”
And the church does ‘teach’ it….
Key To Life Course…(also the PRD should help…)
However, this course is WAAAY overpriced (well…) and the emPHASis of the course has been relegated to an almost nothing course.
Very few people on this planet are getting through that brilliant ‘little’ course.
It is waaaay too dangerous a course – makes Thetans THINK!!
That and a little Data Series and boy… gosh… a thetan who can think, differentiate and let’s hope he/she throws in a little LOOK to boot.
That there would be a heck of a thetan to go up against.
Let’s hope said thetan lacks this “free will” thing you were babbling about elsewhere. That would be bad 🙂
This is a good comment about KTL and conceptual thinking. So true!
You imply that it has purposely been relegated to almost mothing. That makes sense, considering the intentions of the powers that be. But what confuses me is that I have understood aberration (including MUs) to be what causes stupidity. So I have trouble grasping how an SP (a definite aberree), who wants to keep people down, would be smart enough to see that KTL would defeat his purpose – even though I know that LRH did say SPs can be smart or stupid (don’t remember where this was said). Maybe I just don’t want to grant the beingness of intelligence to an SP…
It is interesting though that the long downtrend of the CoS statistics coincided with the public release of the KTL (summer of 1990).
Wow, it’s hard to know what to make of that date coincidence, other than possibly the fact that it started or helped to start a trend away from auditor training.
Would be interested in what you make of it, Geir – I’m wondering if some other observation (about KTL or whatever) drew your attention to the coincidence. Have you done the course, by the way?
I talked ti the person doing a long trend stat analysis in Int Management in 2000; From 1980 the stats were steadily uptrending, turned in the summer of 1990 and downtrended equally steady until 2000 where it was back at the 1980 level. On query, that person said the stats have been steadily downtrending also since 2000. I got the information about the KTL date coincident and asked about its significance. The answer was indicating some suspicion about the way the KTL was laid out. There could of course be other contributing factors or parallel factors (such as the sales of the KTL not being what the COB envisioned, reulting in undue staff pressure etc.)
No, I did not do the course.
Got you. Well, I think there was another change right around 1980-81 and that was David Miscavige, though not COB yet, pretty much taking over management lines and sabotaging LRH’s comm lines re stats and so on (at least that’s what I read on the blogs!).
Anyway, I myself had fabulous gains from KTL – and I was always a pretty good student before that. I went onto the course because I had been TIP’d for KTL delivery in my org. My TIP eventually got changed, though, and I really don’t have a big “vested interest” in defending it per se.
I remember now that KTL wasn’t translated and maybe you haven’t known a lot of people who have done it or heard many of the wins.
I don’t remember having a problem or even hearing about a problem re the way it was laid out (but I was pretty green and still very “sheltered” back then) – but that’s something to think about.
Thanks for your comm! 🙂
You’re welcome.
My greatest wins have come from really looking at words and their derivations and relating it to experience. This all started with PRD. I used to get into long word chains. Resolving that word chain used to be quite an experience of indexing various ideas to each other and simplifying them as concepts. It was pure LOOKING at the deep recesses of the mind in a way. It stll is. It amounts to questioning every word, symbol and idea until it resolves into simplicity.
.
What is really missing on study tech in Scientology, but was not missing at the beginning is a key factor: THE TEACHER.
In early Scientology congresses and ACC’s there was a teacher (LRH) and other people supervising and explaining.
What is missing is the explanation of a good teacher who can really make all students understand faster because he points out which concepts are the juice of the subject and nails down them.
So nobody really teaches and only written material is used, so the full understanding is much more difficult.
I was a teacher for 3 years just at the end of my engineering degree at Politecnico of Milan and I knew that my main goal was to digest for my students the subject and give them full understanding, then they could study text and could fully grasp all the concept, but it was much easier.
I could realize this fact the first year of my engineering degree, I did not follow chemistry classes as there was a wonderful text and a lousy teacher. To study and pass the chemistry exam took me as much time as to study and pass the exams of Calculus, geometry, phisiscs and technical design. I had to go through the 1000 pages of the book digesting all the subject myself.
So the teacher is missing, it is working and worked for a long long time and we should add this to the study tech.
Also in Sc. the study quality is low because there is a focus on stats instead of getting really the student to know and remember.
Excellent point.
Can a proper text book be composed to make up for the lack of a teacher?
This point has consumed a lot of my attention.
.