As a new member, and new to the concept of scientology I have a question regarding the "study tech" - My understanding is that there are basically three barriers to learning and that one must: 1) use a dictionary to look up any words that you don't understand, 2) use physical models whenever possible and 3)never skip steps. I'm just curious as to why RLH is attributed with these "steps"? As a school teacher in the public school system, and as one who has attended public school as a child (BRLH) none of these concepts are "NEW". We have always done these things in education - granted some better than others, but my question is how can RLH take credit for developing this "technology"? People were looking words up in dictionaries before he was born. So I'm just "not getting it". Can anyone help?
Thanks,
Kathy

Kathy,

I can help a whole bunch (at least, I think I can)

Generally, what you say is sort-of correct BUT not exactly.

When I was a kid in public school the teachers didn't really want to direct a student to a dictionary as often as they should have. And I was told "just get the meaning from the context". This is wrong teaching BECAUSE if you could get the meaning from the context THEN the word in question was unnecessary in that sentence.

Making models, where possible, is a great thing and not done enough in schools. (Although "demo kits" is just a silly excerise.)

For example,
Many years ago I took a class in automatic transmissions (for cars) at Fullerton Community College.

Our instructor/teacher had a cut-away of an old Ford C-4 transmission right in front of the class. (As Scientologists would say - this is the "mass" needed for study.) We could see actually how the guts of a transmission worked.

We never made silly clay models - we used the "real" thing. And we didn't use any stupid demo kits. WE could see just how the thing worked. And the instructor demonstrated just what "shifting gears" really means in an automatic transmission.

And we had to know the particular "terms" used in that class. We had to know the "language", so to speak.

And we took apart and put together and took apart and put together and old C4 transmission, many times, UNTIL we knew every part and placement by heart.

And we had to know the names of everything.

Does this answer your question?

P.S. This just isn't done anywhere near enough in public schools.

BTW, I have several dictionaries that I use. For abridged dictionaries I recommend the "American Heritage Dictionary". For unabridged dictionaries I recommend the "Random House Dictionary". For children I recommend an old "Thorndike and Barnhart" dictionary. For law/legal stuff I recommend "Black's Law Dictionary" or, as a second choice, "Ballentine's Law Dictionary".

PG,
I can believe that some (maybe even MOST) of the teachers, even today, don't emphasize these three "steps" to studying. And I think there are reasons for it (not that they make it acceptable) and, as a teacher (hopefully one of the better ones) I can give you my opinion on it if you are interested. HOWEVER, being one of the teachers that spend a LOT of time on these three "steps" (not as part of LRH's study tech because I have only just heard of it about two weeks ago, but because they are necessary steps to understanding and learning) I can say that the kids are VERY resistant to these things (they require effort on THEIR part, you see). So another thing I am wondering is if the success that most people that I am hearing discuss it lately has more to do with MATURITY than the study tech. What I mean by that is that it seems that most of the people who praise it as a "technology" (and that is a whole 'nother issue to me) were, at least, young adults when they became exposed to it - AND had already recognized or struggled with "learning disabilities" (still ANOTHER issue to me) and, therefore, were more open to embrace the idea of "studying" to learn. What is your opinion on this?
Thanks,
Kathy

My daughter was in a Montessorri school for many years. Although they didn't use dictionaries quite enough, IMO, they were mindful of "gradients" and used physical devices to teach. For example, their use of striped sticks to demonstrate some mathemetical concepts was ingenious.

Some of it does have to do with maturity for many people. BUT I think that MOST of it has to do with their environment at home.

My point is, though, how can LRH claim that this "study tech" is HIS when, in fact, people have been doing these things all along? To me, the only thing that LRH did is give them fancy names like "clear" and "mass" and "gradient". A rose by any other name...

How can a liar make a claim that's false? Well, they simply do. Similarly, Hubbard can claim he invented these three educational principles.

What interests me, however, is how the principles of the Study Dreck are used within Scientology as a mechanism for control, for stifling dissent and critical thought: disagree with some bit of nonsense in Scientology? Well, you must have misunderstood something, they say, so off you're sent to the mind-numbing task of laboriously looking up words you already know. Repeat proceedure until you stop objecting/critiquing the bizarre hogwash being rammed down your throat. (This is my impression from having read others' accounts, not first-person experience.)

Ok...I THINK I am starting to "get it". Thanks Brad.
Kathy

The 3 barriers to Study are:

1) Education in the absense of the mass in which the technology will be involved

2) Too steep a study gradient

3) the misunderstood or undefined word

Barriers to Learning

1) the consideration that one knows it all (re the subject) already

2) Too long a runway. (meaning too much stuff leading up to the concept being studied)

and I think there might be one more.

A word out of context can be worthless if the definition is known or unknown. The same holds true that a unknown word in a supporting context becomes clear.
Here is an example.
"He decided the best way to remove him was thru chacury. Waiting for the time to be right he tipped his vial over the other glass. Returning his hand unseen he waited for everyone to drink. Thoughts of finding the bloated corpse in the morning"
Now can you understand what is happening? does it matter if you know what chacury is or not?
Would telling you that it is to kill by poisoning a drink change the scene at all??

While not the major reason for not understanding a concept the 3 study barriers are more speed bumps instead of hurdles.
The learning barriers are subjective.

programmer_guy,

I think the making of models and looking up words varies from teacher to teacher, school to school, and state to state. I got lucky, went to public school in Iowa. Most people say "Iowa?", but that state still has one of the best public school systems in the country. When I went to school, it was #1 in the country, and better than most private schools, We were tested every year to monitor progress(good old ITEDs).

My science, geography, and math teachers used models, gave examples, did experiments, had us work with real world problems, brought in scientists to talk about their work. History teachers showed us documentaries, made us do research, field trips, showed artifacts. When we would discuss an event in history, they would most times bring in a speaker to talk about it. When we talked about WW1 in grade school, they got a WW1 vet to come to class. English teachers made us do both, dictionary and context. The dictionary is cool, but unless you carry a pocket websters, ask the person speaking to repeat what they said and spell it, you need to learn to determine a words meaning by context too. Notice I used too, which means also, which you could have looked up or determined by putting it into context.

The barrier to learning is that the "mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be ignited". Plutarch, actually I've seen the quote with kindled and with ignited, just like ignited better. I've never seen scientology as capable of "igniting the mind". On the flip side I feel the same way about my fellow Christians, well the die hard ones that don't want evolution taught in class.

New technology in the any field is very use full because it help us to create or manufacture specify product in less time.
My science, geography, and math teachers used models, gave examples, did experiments, had us work with real world problems, brought in scientists to talk about their work. History teachers showed us documentaries, made us do research, field trips, showed artifacts. When we would discuss an event in history, they would most times bring in a speaker to talk about it.

It is often possible to get meaning through context, as anyone who has ever read A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess knows.

Later editions included a glossary of "Nadsat," the Russian-influenced slang the futuristic gang members spoke, but Burgess opposed the idea. He thought it ruined the experience.