Study Tech: Why nobody complains about it

Moderator: doubleVee

<<

MaxwellCross

EPFer

Posts: 11

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:35 am

Post Wed Jan 28, 2009 12:18 pm

Study Tech: Why nobody complains about it

I've been reading a lot of critical stories from ex-members and everything, and I gotta say, it amazes me that virtually none of them ever complained about study tech. The reason they left always seemed to be due to something organizational, especially if they were on staff. Not a lot of people really complain about the tech itself (sec checks and ethics being notable exceptions).

Well, I'll tell you something. What made me leave the SO was the Study Tech and specifically Word Clearing. I hate Study Tech. I've hated it from the very beginning but put up with the BS because I like the rest of the tech. I still do to some extent since I'm technically still on lines. But Study Tech, forget it.

And yet the whole time I was in the SO I never heard anyone complain about it. I was always the only one. To this day I never hear anyone complain about it, not even from people who used to be in Scn. I mean, WTF?

World Clearing is a nightmare. I shudder just thinking about what I went through on M1 (co-audit). That almost screwed me up big time. Almost 7 months wasting time on this crap because I wasn't getting anywhere near a F/N. Towards the end when I started F/Ning, I finally EPed and wrote in my success story, "I had a HUGE EXPLOSIVE win because I finally finished M1 after being on it for months and hating every minute of it but now that I'm done, I feel like I'm exteriorizing all over the place and REALLY glad I'll never have to do this crap again."

Those were my exact words, and this was when I was in the SO, during the first few months and it messed me up so bad that I didn't quite realize what I was writing and that I should've given the lie they were looking for. Needless to say, I landed myself in Ethics and went through a couple of Sec Checks, even though I told them that doing these actions was basically invalidating my win.

The worst part of this was what happened after the Sec Checks. The Sec Checks were nothing compared to this diabolical action. Because they determined that I had a massive and staggering amount of MUs regarding Dianetics and Scientology, I was required to M2 every LRH book that I had ever read up to that point as well as M8 the entire Tech dictionary.

And it gets worse. Even though I was always getting reads like crazy, I knew the definitions for most of the words that were getting reactions on the meter. Going through M1 we practically went through the entire dictionary. Doing M2, the same word would usually get a read even though it had been cleared countless times before!

Eventually I gave up. The first book I had to M2 was DMSMH I routed out halfway through that piece of crap. If I never have to read DMSMH again, it'll be too soon. Because of Word Clearing, I have serious engrams related to Study Tech.
<<

LronIsgonE_Snap

User avatar

Suppressive Person

Posts: 1282

Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:36 pm

Location: West Coast USA

Post Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:03 pm

Man, that sounds awful! I can see why an extreme excess of Word Clearing would drive you up a wall. After while you probably had "charge" on the process itself, regardless of what the words were.
Enjoy your life today,
For time is fleeting.
<<

Iknowtoomuch

Suppressive Person

Posts: 913

Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:13 am

Post Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:03 pm

Agreed. While there are some good things in study tech (most are also common sense) there are generalities with it.
Find me one person that can read out loud without some sort of stop, stagger, mispronunciation etc. Give me a Fing break. And everyone of those is an MU...right!
MU phenomenon also made me wonder. If a person isn't interested in what they are reading it means they have an MU....that means everything you read you have to be interested in.......lol. You can't possibly be not interested eh.
"Everybody has a right to believe what they want to believe. But I don't believe that anybody has a right to trick anybody, to hurt anybody, to harm some body, for their own purposes." - Jason Beghe
<<

Megalomaniac

EPFer

Posts: 34

Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 5:50 am

Location: Newport, Oregon

Post Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:04 am

Study Tech

The study tech I learned at the Delphian School was, in order of importance:
1. You are responsible for your education.
2. Evaluate what you study. Decide for yourself if it is true.
3. The purpose of study is to be able to understand and use what you have studied.
4. 3 Barriers to study
...

I thought that was great.


The study tech in Scientology, in which I bogged down in finally was, in order of importance:
1. LRH is source. THE source. That's it. RTC will provide the appropriate version of LRH for you.
2. Your eternity and the future of every man, woman and child depends on understanding and applying Scientology exactly as LRH intended.
3. Every misunderstood must be cleared, or else there are penalties.
4. It's ok to get two crap definitions from a children's dictionary, but if you use a real dictionary and decide to clear just two of the 15 definitions, you are squirreling.
...

This was a big contributing factor to me leaving. I just couldn't follow the rules.

Mac Stevens
It will come to an end. My argument is, it does not have to end badly. -- Ron Paul
<<

Megalomaniac

EPFer

Posts: 34

Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 5:50 am

Location: Newport, Oregon

Post Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:13 am

I remembered some more of the Scientology study tech, which I disagreed with:

5. If your needle doesn't float, then you have an MU. Never mind what you think.
6. In Method 7 word clearing, it's ok to learn just one definition. In Method 9 word clearing, if you just learn one definition, you are a squirrel suppressive.
7. (This is verbal tech, but I know it happened.) Now that [some genius] provided the definition you need in the back of the book, you don't need a "wog dictionary". So, it's ok to get a non-LRH opinion on the meaning of a word, if Bridge Publications produces it, but you're a squirrel if you get an opinion in some other way.
It will come to an end. My argument is, it does not have to end badly. -- Ron Paul
<<

MaxwellCross

EPFer

Posts: 11

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:35 am

Post Fri Jan 30, 2009 7:55 am

It was pretty awful and I definitely had a lot of "charge" when it came to the whole Word Clearing process, star-rate checkouts, etc. but the thing was, I never really trusted the meter. In Scn they keep saying that the "meter doesn't lie" and that it's totally reliable and everything, but even if that were true, the person handling the meter is human and could make mistakes. To this day I'm not completely sure what to think of the meter and whether or not it is actually a reliable and accurate device for identifying mental "charge".

The worst part of Study Tech for me is that LRH basically dictates that the 3 barriers to study are absolute fact and they are proven and there is no argument about that. I mean, to use the concept of the 3 barriers as an advice to study or as a theory of study, that's fine. But to suggest that these are absolutes and that they are proven without a shadow of a doubt to me is suppressive because there is literally no scientific or third-party validation of this. It's totally subjective.

Before I joined the SO Study Tech was just a minor annoyance. I really didn't like it but it wasn't a big deal at all because I was public so it wasn't a problem for me to take my time on course. Even if I went on the meter and they found I had gon ce past an MU, I wouldn't get in Ethics trouble (though I imagine even a public would if it is happening a lot). I'd just get told to go back and find any MUs and clear them. Piece of cake.

In the SO I was to learn the hard way that going past an MU, whether intentional or not, knowignly or unknowingly, is considered a HIGH CRIME. God forbid you go on the meter during study and they find you'd gone past an MU. Man, I can't tell you how many times that happened and how much time I ended up spending in Ethics. The EPF took me almost 9 weeks because I was spending so much time in Ethics. After I finished and officially became SO, the first thing they did was put me on Method One because of that.

The EP of M1 if I remember correctly is full restoration of one's education or something like that. Basically it's supposed to handle every single past MU you've ever had in your life so you can "skyrocket" through study, right? Man, if anything, I think M1 only bogged me down even more.

It's strange too, because I think if it wasn't for all this crap I probably would've never left the SO. Most of the staff I worked with were pretty cool and I had a pretty upstat room and everything and the food was good - it definitely wasn't like PAC Base. I wouldn't blame anyone for blowing PAC considering they had to live in that hellhole of a hospital and they usually were stuck eating rice and beans because they always seemed to be perpetually downstat.

Thats another thing. When you see how bad it is for a lot of SO members at places like PAC, and when you have it relatively easy and comfortable in terms of room and board, you kind of stop complaining and just put up with things because at least it isn't anywhere near as bad as what they have to go through. Or SO missionaries that get sent to places like Africa and Southeast Asia and they have to live in hovels in totally unfamiliar environments in the name of planetary dissem. I never had to go through anything like that.
<<

Iknowtoomuch

Suppressive Person

Posts: 913

Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:13 am

Post Fri Jan 30, 2009 6:52 pm

I can't remember where I read it but I read it many times...Hubbard said one might have to clear a word more than one time. I saw it with my own eyes.
Anyone remember where he said this?
"Everybody has a right to believe what they want to believe. But I don't believe that anybody has a right to trick anybody, to hurt anybody, to harm some body, for their own purposes." - Jason Beghe
<<

Anonymous9104

OT8 Class 12

Posts: 418

Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:07 pm

Post Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:06 pm

Iknowtoomuch wrote:I can't remember where I read it but I read it many times...Hubbard said one might have to clear a word more than one time. I saw it with my own eyes.
Anyone remember where he said this?


I don't recall where but I also remember seeing this, maybe in Madman or Messiah... seems very 'old school'.
<<

Iknowtoomuch

Suppressive Person

Posts: 913

Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:13 am

Post Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:44 pm

Anonymous9104 wrote:
Iknowtoomuch wrote:I can't remember where I read it but I read it many times...Hubbard said one might have to clear a word more than one time. I saw it with my own eyes.
Anyone remember where he said this?


I don't recall where but I also remember seeing this, maybe in Madman or Messiah... seems very 'old school'.



I saw it specifically when I was in the Sea Org.
"Everybody has a right to believe what they want to believe. But I don't believe that anybody has a right to trick anybody, to hurt anybody, to harm some body, for their own purposes." - Jason Beghe
<<

Megalomaniac

EPFer

Posts: 34

Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 5:50 am

Location: Newport, Oregon

Post Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:54 pm

MaxwellCross wrote:It was pretty awful and I definitely had a lot of "charge" when it came to the whole Word Clearing process, star-rate checkouts, etc. but the thing was, I never really trusted the meter. In Scn they keep saying that the "meter doesn't lie" and that it's totally reliable and everything, but even if that were true, the person handling the meter is human and could make mistakes. To this day I'm not completely sure what to think of the meter and whether or not it is actually a reliable and accurate device for identifying mental "charge".


Yep, I agree.

MaxwellCross wrote:The worst part of Study Tech for me is that LRH basically dictates that the 3 barriers to study are absolute fact and they are proven and there is no argument about that. I mean, to use the concept of the 3 barriers as an advice to study or as a theory of study, that's fine. But to suggest that these are absolutes and that they are proven without a shadow of a doubt to me is suppressive because there is literally no scientific or third-party validation of this. It's totally subjective.


I agree again.

MaxwellCross wrote:Before I joined the SO Study Tech was just a minor annoyance. I really didn't like it but it wasn't a big deal at all because I was public so it wasn't a problem for me to take my time on course. Even if I went on the meter and they found I had gon ce past an MU, I wouldn't get in Ethics trouble (though I imagine even a public would if it is happening a lot). I'd just get told to go back and find any MUs and clear them. Piece of cake.


This is how it was for me at first, too! It was a tool, not a ball & chain.

MaxwellCross wrote:In the SO I was to learn the hard way that going past an MU, whether intentional or not, knowignly or unknowingly, is considered a HIGH CRIME. God forbid you go on the meter during study and they find you'd gone past an MU. Man, I can't tell you how many times that happened and how much time I ended up spending in Ethics. The EPF took me almost 9 weeks because I was spending so much time in Ethics. After I finished and officially became SO, the first thing they did was put me on Method One because of that.


This happened for me during & after Key to Life. I was never in the SO, but the High Crime policies seemed like they applied to me as a public and it was more ane more obvious to me that I was in BIG TROUBLE for going by an MU and I just got more and more careful and bogged badly. Also got into ethics quite a few times, mostly for (forgetting now) stupid stuff like MU's.

Funny thing is, I can study other subjects fairly well. But Scientology is laden with all these overkill penalties, so I just bog.

By the way, Key to Life was a great course for me. Loved it. I just wish I were allowed to use some frickin judgement. If I had been, I'd probably still be on course now. But now that I know what I know, it's doubtful I'll ever go back.
It will come to an end. My argument is, it does not have to end badly. -- Ron Paul
<<

I Escaped

EPFer

Posts: 27

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 10:13 pm

Post Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:39 pm

Oh yeah, Wordclearing! What a subject! I actually never cleared all the definition, but only read the one that applied. Making sentences? not me! I remembered getting my M2 on the E-meter. Wow! One paragraph with about 20 words, took me 50 hours to get through.... Apparently I was reading on the meter on every word, even the ones I had cleared before on my M2. Great fun...
<<

MaxwellCross

EPFer

Posts: 11

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:35 am

Post Mon Feb 02, 2009 1:16 pm

This happened for me during & after Key to Life. I was never in the SO, but the High Crime policies seemed like they applied to me as a public and it was more ane more obvious to me that I was in BIG TROUBLE for going by an MU and I just got more and more careful and bogged badly. Also got into ethics quite a few times, mostly for (forgetting now) stupid stuff like MU's.

Funny thing is, I can study other subjects fairly well. But Scientology is laden with all these overkill penalties, so I just bog.


Ethics penalties for regular public aren't too bad unless they want to do something that you have to pay money for (sec checks and the like). The most they can do is have you go over a bunch of LRH bulletins and other crap like that and have to spend a lot of time BSing with the Ethics Officer.

It's annoying and your course will take longer, but that's about the worst of it. If it's so bad that it's getting in the way of your getting anything out of it, then I would seriously consider finding a different org or mission. Some are better than others.

You can usually tell which orgs are the best based on their clientele and how busy the org is. The busier the org, the more public they've got, generally the more level-headed they are. I worked at the middle management building on Hollywood Blvd for awhile in SMI and RTC and I can tell you based stats I observed while there that the most successful orgs were also the ones that were the least fanatical in their application of LRH policy. Ironically, it's those orgs and missions that get written up the most by the zealots. But because they're upstat and raking in huge amounts of income for the Church, SMI and RTC don't do anything.

The stupidity of it is that management knows that taking a more moderate approach in applying LRH policy now only gets more public in, but helps keep them there. Vast majority of public don't give a rats ass about KSW, MU HIGH CRIMES, etc. KSW probably drives more new public from Scn than anything else, which is why they're not pushing new people onto the training side of the Bridge as much as they used to. Now they push the Basics courses and auditing side of the Bridge and so forth.

By the way, Key to Life was a great course for me. Loved it. I just wish I were allowed to use some frickin judgement. If I had been, I'd probably still be on course now. But now that I know what I know, it's doubtful I'll ever go back.


What is that course like? I wouldn't mind taking it (along with Life Orientation), but I've heard people say that it is intensely difficult and you have to clay demo all the small words in "Common Words Defined" (whatever the title is) and that it can make months to finish. Life Orientation is supposed to be even more difficult. A long time ago they apparently used to promote these two courses to raw public but these days they rarely ever mention them.

I wouldn't recommend going back on lines either unless you can go to an org like CC Int. That's the best org in terms of overall satisfaction from public. If they think that you're someone important or an aspiring actor or any kind of artist, or better yet, someone who potentially has a lot of money (doesn't matter if you don't, as long as they think you are well-to-do), they will handle you with kid gloves because they don't want to scare you away. Same thing with many missions that cater to high-profile public.

The average local org, however, is horrible in terms of PR handling and retaining new public. In Class V orgs, the Day staff are probably going to be better than Foundation staff. In my experience Foundation staff, wherever they are, are usually bastards.

Flag is pretty good overall for basic courses and such. Again, if they think that you're well-to-do and have money to spend, they will handle you with kid gloves and even the Ethics Office, if you get sent there, will take it easy. If they think that you're a just regular average joe, they will usually not be so easy and lenient.

It's a sad state of affairs.
<<

James McGuigan

User avatar

Ghost in the Machine

Posts: 396

Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:42 am

Location: Between Reality Tunnels

Post Mon Feb 02, 2009 8:36 pm

The key to life is not a bad course. There is clay table auditing at the start of the course (like you get on pro-TRs), though I massively overran on it (you are not told the EP until after you originate it).

Next is a formal description of the rules of english grammar.

The last section is "Common Words Defined", which is an LRH written dictionary on all the definitions of all the small common words. You don't clay demo them, but you do use standard word clearing on each definition and make up sentences for each one. Words like "to" can have more than 20 definitions.

However, while on the KTL, you are not supposed to read anything else from other sources (in cause you pick up MUs).

The major goal of the Key to Life is to formally and explicitly teach you the building blocks of the English language which most people have just picked up informally and intuitively. While not "life changing", and it did take a while, it was a useful course to do.


I didn't think quite as much about the Life Orientation Course, it mainly goes over the dynamics, the basics of LRH admin tech and then gets you to figure out your hat in life. Though if you do do the course, its worth noting that most people end up finding their "hat in life" to be their "current hat in life". Also I did have some reservations about the Bolivar article (I need to find an online copy and comment on it).

While doing the Life Orientation Course, I found a small book in the LOC courseroom, called "The Truth About Money Book" describing the fractional reserve monetary system (97% of money in circulation is created out of thin air in the form of debt borrowed at compound interest). Personally I got more wins from this little book than the huge LOC course book. Guess this was one of the small things that started me questioning the absolute value of Scientology.
Personally I got more wins from reading
Freedom is a choice. Choose to be yourself, choose to speak your truth and do so with compassion. And above all else, choose to be not afraid. If I can't dance, its not my revolution.
<<

non-Sci bf

EPFer

Posts: 12

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:25 pm

Post Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:43 pm

while i have no direct experience with study tech, i can comment on how the effects of it appear to an outsider with a good education.

my girlfriend was born into Sci and went to an applied scholastics school. never went to any non-sci school or college at all. talking to her, you can tell she is smart and has learned a lot from her experiences in life. but inevitably, when the conversation turns intellectual, major red flags come up. i won't even go into math and sciences; i think it's common opinion that the study tech has little focus on these areas. but even in reading and writing skills, which the study tech claims as its strength, she seems to have a severe lack of education. anytime she reads something to me, she comes across words she doesn't know, and i'm not talking about obscure words. a couple times, she tried to write emails to apply for jobs, and got so stressed out that she almost couldn't write a single sentence. and when it comes to history, or just areas or general knowledge that you expect an educated person to have. there are so many things she has just never heard of.

from what i can tell, study tech has left her severly undereducated, and incapable of functioning in the real professional world. i think it's a tragedy and that her parents did her a huge disservice putting her into that kind of school. of course, they wouldn't have had it any other way. i hope that one day she'll realize what she's missing and work really hard to qualify for college applications. it'll be really difficult, not having the necessary foundation or skills and knowledge, but for a smart individual, hopefully it's possible.

why is scientology so unfocussed on education (meaning college or even completion of high school)? everyone i know that has been involved in it has no college education. the only way i can understand it is that it's all part of the system to make you dependent on the Co$ and only qualified to work for them and continue feeding the machine. pretty ingenious if you ask me
<<

Anonymous9104

OT8 Class 12

Posts: 418

Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:07 pm

Post Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:57 pm

no, you're right. there are mad, sick, twisted genius', and that is LRH. he's an expert exploiter of the human plight
<<

mrtampa

Clear

Posts: 97

Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 2:05 am

Location: TAMPA

Post Mon Jul 19, 2010 3:15 am

Study tech

Study tech can be good if used well and correctly I think _ I was a supervisor and staff training officer for a long time. I have seen however word clearing almost used as punishment and forcing people to clear up words they already knew and making them to reread stuffs 20-30 times - yes that can drive people crazy.

Return to Tech Debates & Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group.
Designed by ST Software