Study tech - a fraud

Share your experiences and comments about Scientology's "Study Technology".
waverley
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 6:27 am

Study tech - a fraud

Post by waverley » Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:09 am

I note that few critics ever address the essentially fraudulent nature of study tech, which is not a study "technology" at all, but a tool of indoctrination into texts written in often obscure and infelicitious Hubbardese, which resembles English, but isn't.

In this connection, the following points need to be borne in mind:

1.
Genuine study involves a continuous process of questioning, probing and testing to validate the ideas and assumptions contained in a text. This is explicitly forbidden - on pain of excommunication - to students of scientology wrestling with the contents of HCOBs, PLs and books written, or tapes spoken in Hubbardese. Failure to understand these texts is presumed and explicitly asserted to be caused solely by the student's own shortcomings, which can include: (1) misunderstood or not understood words on the part of the student, (2) the student being "out-gradient" in his/her studies, i.e. moving through the material too fast, (3) the student not "demoing" constantly, in order to "add mass to significance", i.e. not continuously attempting to convert the abstract into concrete, supposedly by fiddling with bits and pieces of rubbish on the table, and (4) the student actually having "counterintentions" or even "evil intentions", i.e. just being contrary. Of course, this is all arrant nonsense, but the point is easily understood if we recognise that the very reason for the rise of "study tech" in the first instance was the need to create an indoctrination methodology that would provide a consistent disciplinary framework for driving scientology's mostly semi-educated, and often semiliterate or even illiterate retards and sales types (who make up the bulk of scientology students) through the Hubbardese texts, to the point where they could begin apply the instructions contained therein.
2.
The claim that misunderstood or not understood words are the chief culprits behind not comprehending a text or a tape is arrant nonsense, because mostly it is not individual words, but the unusual and idiosyncratic constructions and ways in which Hubbard chooses to use words, and in particular the way that words are strung together, that is most often the chief problem in comprehending Hubbardese. In other words, the main issue is the idiosyncratic incoherence of phrases, sentences or even whole paragraphs - where looking up, parroting and "demoing" dictionary definitions of words is about as much help in understanding the text or tape as kicking a dog after having had an argument with the wife. The problem is compounded by the fact that all Hubbardese texts are in fact transcriptions from tape, so on top of Hubbard's bizarre distortions of the English language, Hubbardese texts are thus also often full of transcription errors by semiliterate transcribers having done the job in a hurry, no doubt to meet the weekly stats quota by Thursday 2pm. Egregious instances of this abound, for example, in the bizarre HCOBs of both the level 2 and level 3 packs on OTVII, where both newbies and six monthly pilgrims alike can "word clear" until the cows come home, to no perceptible effect, and where supervisors and word clearers are of course conveniently forbidden to assist the students with "verbal tech" - even if they had the foggiest about what Hubbard was burbling about in those places, which of course they don't. So everybody just pretends and goes along with the "virtuous" and sanctimonious charade in the Sandcastle academy rooms, where twinning on M9 on texts read for the umpteenth time is often an eye opening exercise in mutual cheating to assist each other in getting through that obstacle course in a minimally reasonable amount of time.
3.
The nonsense and fraud of study tech is best demonstrated when attempting to apply its strictures to a course of university-level studies. Can anyone imagine completing a semester's worth of studies and successfully passing English Literature, Operations Research, Economics or Applied Mathematics, after having spent all one's time on giving ALL the dictionary definitions of "a" and "the" in one's own words whilst for each definition fiddling with bits and pieces of rubbish on the table, in order to show evidence of having understandood it? This is a prospect which is altogether too bizarre even to contemplate. Reminds me of the story of the apprentice parachutist, who was told to count till ten, then pull the cord. He fell all the way to the ground, without having opened his parachute, but luckily he fell on a haystack. When they found him, he was still counting: se-se-se-se-VEN! The poor fella turned out to be a stutterer.
4.
The ability to study is primarily a function of the student's native intelligence, and has little to do with a robotic application of MUs, with gradients, with fiddling with pieces of rubbish on the table or with any psychotic "counterintentions". It is of course perfectly true that focusing exclusively on these obstacles to "study" will and does provide a reasonably effective framework for indoctrinating faithful bands of retards and zombies with scientology dogma - as similar methods also did, evidently, help in indoctrinating many unfortunate targets of compulsory communist agitprop back in the bad old days behind the Iron Curtain. But that has about az much to do with "study" and "technology" as a Pakistani moslem madrasa with Harvard University. The attempt to foist this indoctrination methodology on unsuspecting non-scientologists in the education system is based on a fundamental, if wilful misconstrual of the nature of genuine study by scientology sales types. In trying to foist this nonsense on children who know no better and teachers who should know better, these scientology shysters are in fact engaged in what amounts to fraudulently and criminally passing out three dollar bills, and they must be stopped for the children's sake.

free_for_real
Posts: 1643
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 6:12 pm

Post by free_for_real » Fri Dec 17, 2004 4:42 pm

Joe, welcome to the board, you make some valid points.

Although I was always taught to look up words even before scientology, that was not the end all, be all of learning a subject.

Their is also accumulated knowledge, your own ability to think and apply new knowledge and of course experience and practice.

I would imagine that I could clear every word about how to play a piano and demonstrate it and have a full conceptual understanding of it and yet still not be a concert pianist.

I also agree with your points on the way hubbard said things.

I have spent hours on course trying to understand phrases he put together.

Now I realize, he was just rambling and it made no sense whatsoever.

Hubbard's Mushroom
Posts: 8290
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:02 pm

Post by Hubbard's Mushroom » Fri Dec 17, 2004 5:13 pm

Yeah, how dumb is that to think people should learn how to study following the ideas of an idiot like Hub-retard who flunked his college courses.

Girlfriend
Posts: 3690
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 6:27 pm

Post by Girlfriend » Fri Dec 17, 2004 7:02 pm

Great post, Joe, and welcome. Actually there have been studies/essays/articles on Hubbard's "study tech" by critics of scientology. See link below for starters, written by Dr. David S. Touretzky and Chris Owen, both active critics of the cult of scientology and much of its whacky theories, doctrine, and practices and on this particular website Hubbard's "study tech."

http://www.studytech.org/study_tech1.php

Girlfriend
Posts: 3690
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 6:27 pm

Post by Girlfriend » Fri Dec 17, 2004 7:10 pm

Joe,

Here's another critic website re "study tech":

http://home.snafu.de/tilman/mystory/study.html

Happy reading!

Girlfriend
Posts: 3690
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 6:27 pm

Post by Girlfriend » Fri Dec 17, 2004 7:37 pm


marie42
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 3:14 pm

Post by marie42 » Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:47 pm

As sort of one of the not ever "in" Sci, people, I have to say that the "study tech" is probably the only USEFUL thing every produced out of LRH. God knows he's unreadable - whether it's fiction or "non-fiction" - because of his poor grammar and sentence structure.

But looking things up in the dictionary, learning at a gradient, and demonstrating concepts through the use of clay, pieces of junk or by play is certainly not completely worthless.

Whether it's "original" or not, is another matter. My post "Sci" experience tells me that he ripped off religious and psychological concepts left and right and applied his own little "terms" to make them seem new. Why not educational concepts?

free_for_real
Posts: 1643
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 6:12 pm

Post by free_for_real » Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:55 pm

Marie, the ideas of demonstation and looking up words and gradients hae always been part of education, just not in the twisted "this is the answer to everything" method that Hubbard presents.

Most everything if not everything Hubbard claims that was at all workable was in existence before him and the rest is pure science fiction which he was probably the best at.

User avatar
mikedewolf
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 4:41 pm
Location: Anytown, USA

Post by mikedewolf » Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:04 pm

Here's a rule to keep in mind about the "Tech."

What is useful (in the "Tech") is not unique.
What is unique is not useful.
Mike de Wolf
"A science that depends on Authority alone is a breath in the wind of truth and is therefore no science at all." - L. Ron Hubbard

marie42
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 3:14 pm

Post by marie42 » Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:16 pm

Free at Last - I've read his science fiction - it definitely WASN'T what he was best at!
LOL
I've been reading very FINE science fiction all of my adult life, and his isn't in there anywhere.

Ripping off other philosophies and soaking money out of people are what he was best at.

(snigger)

free_for_real
Posts: 1643
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 6:12 pm

Post by free_for_real » Mon Jan 03, 2005 6:14 am

marie42, then I stand corrected.

don_carlo
Posts: 1592
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 5:38 pm

Post by don_carlo » Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:21 am

Working with clay as an aid to visualization and educational growth was popularized by Maria Montessori. QUOTE: Montessori materials and activities lead the child gradually from concrete concepts to abstract understanding. END QUOTE from
MONTESSORI PHILOSOPHY AND PRACTICES. Maria started in the early 1900's in Italy, so definitely Hubbard didn't "help" her.

User avatar
programmer_guy
Posts: 8877
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 7:55 am
Location: Somewhere far beyond the land of Oz.

Post by programmer_guy » Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:41 am

Apparently, Montessori schools are free to not use all of the techniques of Maria Montessori. I don't remember my daughter doing clay "demos" - but, now that I am curious - I will ask her if she remembers ever doing this.

I knew another engineer, many years ago, that had his children in a Montessori school. He said that he had seen more than one AND he said they could seem to be quite different one-from-another - some more "free wheeling" and others quite structured and disciplined.
codo ergo sum.

don_carlo
Posts: 1592
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 5:38 pm

Post by don_carlo » Mon Jan 10, 2005 4:44 pm

Montessori schools don't use clay demos. They believe strongly in hands-on, real-world learning using all the senses, and they also want to teach fine arts, so clay is naturally used. My Jan 4 link above mentions this.

I believe that before Montessori, the only place you could learn with clay was in a professional Art school. Clay just wasn't in the official curriculum at most neighborhood schools, before the 1920's. So all of us who had fun with clay in elementary school, thank Ms. Montessori, not Mr. Hubbard.

Girlfriend
Posts: 3690
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 6:27 pm

Post by Girlfriend » Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:34 pm

Working with clay is a fun, sensual, and interesting Hands-On experience. Ask any potter. And yes, thank Maria Montessori for giving children that experience in a school environment.

"The next generation of the ModelGlove will have sensors on all fingers and on the palm of the hand to give users full finger control of virtual clay. This will enable users to perform complex touch actions -- such as kneading the ball of clay -- in the virtual environment, according to Kesavadas."

http://www.theclayman.com/2004_07_01_th ... chive.html

Too bad for scientologists Hubbard was never sincerely curious enough to be challenged with real, evolving technology in any of the fields he claimed to know about.

Post Reply

Return to “Study Technology”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest