Scientology "STUDY TECH" Teaches Blind Acceptance.
Chris Schafmeister
Scientology "study tech" teaches that the
"three barriers to learning" are:
1) The misunderstood word.
2) Lack of sufficient "mass".
3) Learning things on too high a "gradient".
Conspicuous by its absence is any mention that
every individual must critically evaluate everything
they read and judge its correctness based on what they have
already learned. Glaring in its absence is any mention of the fact
that a good deal of what is in print is wrong or misleading.
Hubbard knew what he was doing,
and his "solution" to the problems of learning
is ideal for creating individuals with a
false confidence that they know how to learn,
and an engineered weakness in their capacity for
critical thinking about what they are learning.
Even if Scientology "Study Tech" is presented as non-secular,
and no mention of Scientology is made in its teaching,
it is indoctrination to a flawed way of learning.
We see what "Study Tech" does to Scientologists,
its a simple, brainless formula that makes them
think they have all the answers while they choke
down Hubbard's crap.
Learning is hard work folks,
I know, I'm just finishing my Ph.D.
Brainless "Study Tech" is fine for Scientologists,
but our children are too valuable to make them more
susceptable to ridiculous and bizarre cults.
.Chris.
--
Christian E.A.F. Schafmeister Biophysics graduate student
University of California, San Francisco
"We went to the Moon. It wasn't a miracle. We just decided to go." -Apollo13
Roland
Chris Schafmeister wrote:
>
> Scientology "study tech" teaches that the
> "three barriers to learning" are:
>
> 1) The misunderstood word.
> 2) Lack of sufficient "mass".
> 3) Learning things on too high a "gradient".
>
> Conspicuous by its absence is any mention that
> every individual must critically evaluate everything
> they read and judge its correctness based on what they have
> already learned. Glaring in its absence is any mention of the fact
> that a good deal of what is in print is wrong or misleading.
When I went to live and work in France I was still a scieno. I had to
learn to speak French to at least some degree. I tried the Hubbo way,
clearing words, using a demo kit etc. I got nowhere for about 2 years.
in the end I got totally disillusioned with scientology and hid all my
tapes and books away. I then started speaking French a lot better.
> Hubbard knew what he was doing,
> and his "solution" to the problems of learning
> is ideal for creating individuals with a
> false confidence that they know how to learn,
> and an engineered weakness in their capacity for
> critical thinking about what they are learning.
>
> Even if Scientology "Study Tech" is presented as non-secular,
> and no mention of Scientology is made in its teaching,
> it is indoctrination to a flawed way of learning.
>
> We see what "Study Tech" does to Scientologists,
> its a simple, brainless formula that makes them
> think they have all the answers while they choke
> down Hubbard's crap.
>
> Learning is hard work folks,
> I know, I'm just finishing my Ph.D.
>
> Brainless "Study Tech" is fine for Scientologists,
> but our children are too valuable to make them more
> susceptable to ridiculous and bizarre cults.
Good stuff!
Roland
--
A RealAudio Clips: http://huizen.dds.nl/~goofsel/Co$/sounds.htm
/ \ The Xemu Leaflet: http://home.sn.no/~aheldall/leaflet/
/ P \ Scientology compatible with Christianity? Oh Yea?
R --- C http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~rolandrb/nochrist.ra
Martin Hunt
In article <schaf.8...@cgl.ucsf.edu>,
sc...@cgl.ucsf.edu (Chris Schafmeister) wrote:
>Scientology "study tech" teaches that the
>"three barriers to learning" are:
>
>1) The misunderstood word.
>2) Lack of sufficient "mass".
>3) Learning things on too high a "gradient".
>
>Conspicuous by its absence is any mention that
>every individual must critically evaluate everything
>they read and judge its correctness based on what they have
>already learned. Glaring in its absence is any mention of the fact
>that a good deal of what is in print is wrong or misleading.
To be fair, the public school system does not teach these vital
skills early enough or with enough vigour either.
Critical thinking and reading skills are almost absent from grade
school reading classes, giving the early impression that everything
written is true. I've seen some remarkably uncritical 20-somethings,
supposedly well-educated by the system, but still open to deceptive
arguments, trusting TV actors dressed as doctors telling about the
latest nostrum, and believing what they see and read in tabloid media.
The Allyn & Bacon Handbook starts off with this aspect of thought
with the first 50 pages being devoted to Thinking Critically,
Critical Thinking and Reading, and Critical Thinking and Writing,
but how common is this? Why must children wait until college to
be taught the basics of skepticism and science?
>Hubbard knew what he was doing,
>and his "solution" to the problems of learning
>is ideal for creating individuals with a
>false confidence that they know how to learn,
>and an engineered weakness in their capacity for
>critical thinking about what they are learning.
I could say the same for the public school system. Creativity and
religion seems to be the focus, along with blind trust in authority
figures, teachers, and scientists. Skepticism and critical thought
are notably absent, even in scant consumerism classes. What are
we making? Pliant consumers who will buy what they see in ads
on the six hours of TV they watch each day? Thoughtless, bland
citizens who do not create too much noise, and obey the ruling
class? Ads come on in a movie theatre; the people sit and watch
blankly, soft laughter over the humour in the Visa ads. Am I the
only one booing the intrusion? Why pay good money only to see ads?
I don't know about this society...too many spineless people, too many
"good" consumers, and not enough outrage and protest and raging
against the machine.
>Even if Scientology "Study Tech" is presented as non-secular,
>and no mention of Scientology is made in its teaching,
>it is indoctrination to a flawed way of learning.
>
>We see what "Study Tech" does to Scientologists,
>its a simple, brainless formula that makes them
>think they have all the answers while they choke
>down Hubbard's crap.
>
>Learning is hard work folks,
>I know, I'm just finishing my Ph.D.
>
>Brainless "Study Tech" is fine for Scientologists,
>but our children are too valuable to make them more
>susceptable to ridiculous and bizarre cults.
I worry more about the state of education in this country in
general, which has far more influence on far more people. Why isn't
atheism taught? What about evolution? Science? Critical thought?
Critical reading skills? Skepticism?
A nation of sheep.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. Mailrules: Xenu will get you through the night!
Just the FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282
Scientology Webring: http://www.islandnet.com/~martinh/webring.htm
The Cult in Canada: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/1332
ARSCC Photo Gallery: http://www.islandnet.com/~martinh/arscc.htm
David Fabian
Martin Hunt <mar...@islandnet.com> wrote in article <g4g9zMdl...@islandnet.com>...
<snip>
> Critical thinking and reading skills are almost absent from grade
> school reading classes, giving the early impression that everything
> written is true.
Whenever I get done reading an article, especially an "informative" one
(like "Research finds two drinks a day help prevent heart attacks"), I ask
myself, "What do I feel like buying or doing now, that I did not feel like a
few minutes ago?" This question often uncovers who is behind the article.
<snip>
> The Allyn & Bacon Handbook
I'll be sure to buy it.
<snip>
> Why must children wait until college to be taught the basics of
> skepticism and science?
Either because our system believes most people should be sheep, or
simply because our schools do not want to face skepticism while *they*
are trying to teach or indoctrinate children.
<snip>
> What are we making? Pliant consumers who will buy what they see in
> ads on the six hours of TV they watch each day? Thoughtless, bland
> citizens who do not create too much noise, and obey the ruling class?
Exactly.
> Ads come on in a movie theatre; the people sit and watch blankly, soft
> laughter over the humour in the Visa ads. Am I the only one booing the
> intrusion?
I am especially disgusted when the movies themselves are full of overt
or subliminal advertisements.
> Why pay good money only to see [theater] ads?
... or pay good money to see cable TV ads?
> I don't know about this society...too many spineless people, too many
> "good" consumers, and not enough outrage and protest and raging
> against the machine.
Yes, the Co$ isn't the *only* organization trying to control people.
<snip>
> A nation of sheep.
... and a nation ripe for foreign takeover. When a regimes silences its
critics, it loses its ability to change, and shortly thereafter self-destructs.
Dave
Mike de Wolfe
mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) wrote:
>>Conspicuous by its absence is any mention that
>>every individual must critically evaluate everything
>>they read and judge its correctness based on what they have
>>already learned. Glaring in its absence is any mention of the fact
>>that a good deal of what is in print is wrong or misleading.
>To be fair, the public school system does not teach these vital
>skills early enough or with enough vigour either.
>Critical thinking and reading skills are almost absent from grade
>school reading classes, giving the early impression that everything
>written is true.
It is hard to fault the the idea of introducing LRH study tech into
public schools when the public schools are using such hogwash
techniques as "Whole Language" reading and "invented spelling."
I don't think that there is anything wrong with the beasic tennents of
study tech, namely the the ideas of making sure every word is
understood, making sure steps aren't skipped, and balancing actual
application with the theory. The brainwashing comes in when students
are taught that any disagreement results from misunderstood words.
When I attended Scientology schools, quesiton "Do you have a
misunderstood?" and threats of having to go back and find some words
to clear discouraged crital thinking.
I myself on occasion had to do word clrearing and other stupid drills
when I did not agree with one of LRH's opinions.
Mike de Wolfe
"A science which depends on Authority alone is a breath in
the wind of truth and is therefore no science at all."
- L. Ron Hubbard
Bev
Mike de Wolfe wrote:
> When I attended Scientology schools, quesiton "Do you have a
> misunderstood?" and threats of having to go back and find some words
> to clear discouraged crital thinking.
Yes, this is a fact that was soon learned by students attending
the Co$ school I was at.
They learned if they didn't quite grasp a concept to keep going
because to ask a question meant they would have to get off course
and spend large amounts of times finding all THEIR MU's, and/or
having to do clay demos to the supervisors pass.
And they also learned, God forbid, NEVER yawn if you were tired.
A yawm would bring the supervisor running and meant having to
go backwards on your course in the great MU hunt.
One thing that a lot of the students DID learn from going to the
Co$ school was how to yawn with their mouths SHUT! :-)
Beverly
Bernie
jens...@imaginet.fr (Jens Tingleff) wrote in article
<jensting-ya0240800...@snews2.zippo.com>:
>In article <01bcaad4$6ea00220$326eafce@dell>, "David Fabian" <dfa...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>> Martin Hunt <mar...@islandnet.com> wrote in article <g4g9zMdl...@islandnet.com>...
>> > Why must children wait until college to be taught the basics of
>> > skepticism and science?
Because you think you are displaying the logic of it here,
Martin? Think again.
>> Either because our system believes most people should be sheep, or
>> simply because our schools do not want to face skepticism while *they*
>> are trying to teach or indoctrinate children.
Good point.
>Seriously, it's hard enough to teach kids anything (I come from a family of
>teachers, I KNOW!). IHO, the sophistication to deal with ambiguities comes
>with maturity,
True.
>and one should be very careful about destabilising the trust
>there should be between pupils and teachers.
>I'm not saying that one should train sheep,
That's kind of what you are saying in the above sentence,
though.
>I'm saying that one should not
>- in the first history lesson - emphasise that history books are, by
>definition, imperfect
Why not?
>and that one should always look for the motivations
>and hidden intentions of the author.
Is that what you call "critical thinking", to speculate on
"hidden intentions"? I certainly don't view it that way.
>Once the pupils understand how to read a text (in general: absorb what a
>piece of source material is conveying), they can be taught to get an
>impression of the author from that text.
Critical thinking doesn't have anything to do with the author of
the text. It can very well be active in the very reading itself.
*How* to read, how to *think*, that's critical thinking, not
speculation about the author's motivations.
>The latter stages of this - being critical of sources - is something I was
>taught in high school (age 15-18). This was hard work for many students
>(myself included).
So what where you told, specifically?
>I *do* think that critical thinking skills should be taught and encouraged.
Me too, but certainly not the way you describe it. Which tend to
turn my "me too" into a "me not", actually.
>Sadly, it falls foul of the liking for simple answers which is the more
>simple option and which is encouraged so very strongly by the mass media,
>the politicians, the salespeople, etc.
By human general ignorance. Where do you think that uncritical
thinking comes from in the first place? It is sloppy thinking,
quick acceptance, exploitation. All things *encouraged* by our
society. It would be quite ironic if the same society would
"teach" critical thinking. My take of it is that it teaches
uncritical thinking by example instead.
>See "Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media," a totally
>brilliant Canadian (it sould be made outside the US ;-) ) film about
>Chomsky and about his preoccupations with the media. Films like this should
>be mandatory viewing for all people in their late teens.
How to teach critical thinking without that itself becomes
indoctrination is a very difficult point. What may be a blessing
to start with, may very well turn out to be a most damning
thing.
>They should be shown it so many times that they can repeat every sentence
>in their sleep! They should be able to - robotically - murmur the mantra "I
>can think for myself. I can think for myself"!! They should be brainwashed
>into total acceptabce of the idiom that they should let no vested interest
>control them!!!
Hehe, that's it.
>Ahemm; you get the idea ;-)
Bernie
Diane Richardson
On Sun, 17 Aug 1997 12:20:52 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
[snip]
>>Sadly, it falls foul of the liking for simple answers which is the more
>>simple option and which is encouraged so very strongly by the mass media,
>>the politicians, the salespeople, etc.
>
>By human general ignorance. Where do you think that uncritical
>thinking comes from in the first place? It is sloppy thinking,
>quick acceptance, exploitation. All things *encouraged* by our
>society. It would be quite ironic if the same society would
>"teach" critical thinking. My take of it is that it teaches
>uncritical thinking by example instead.
I'm not so quick to condemn all of "society" for this tendency,
Bernie, or to blame it entirely on politicians, salespeople, etc.
I've recently witnessed first-hand efforts made by a junior-level
school (ages 12-15) to alter both the curriculum and teaching methods
to encourage more critical and independent thinking from students.
The changes made were minor -- they certainly were not radical in any
sense of the word -- and they were being made by a faculty that had
long experience (15 years and more) teaching in the same school in the
same community. The teachers themselves were long-term residents of
the community, shared the same basic values as the larger community,
and in most instances had children of their own educated at the
school.
These changes engendered protest from a small but very vocal minority.
Small and vocal enough to get television coverage when they picketed
the school, disrupted school board meetings, etc.
The faculty had nearly unanimous support from "politicians," and
certainly from the school superintendant. The dissent came from a
very small but very loud group of right-wing fringe-type people --
ultraconservatives, conspiracy kooks, religious fundamentalists, and
the like.
The objections raised by these people was that the schools should not
be permitted to inject "value-laden" material into the curriculum.
They believe that schools should be restricted to teaching "facts."
Encouraging students to evaluate what they learn rather than repeating
memorized "facts" should not be allowed. The diciplines that came
under attack most often were English literature and composition and
the social studies -- history and citizenship.
The dissenters believe that asking the students to do any more than
answer factual questions based on material should not be allowed.
They believe that asking a student, "When was the U.S. Constitution
ratified?" is an appropriate question. To ask a student "What does
the First Amendment mean to you?" is inappropriate and should not be
permitted.
The example I witnessed first-hand is not a solitary incident. It is
being repeated hundreds of times across the United States, by very
well-organized groups. Sadly, at the time when this country most
needs a citizenry capable of critical thinking, there is a concerted
campaign to deny such skills to its young people
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Martin Hunt
In article <5t6fu6$b...@examiner.concentric.net>,
mwo...@rpf.org (Mike de Wolfe) wrote:
>It is hard to fault the the idea of introducing LRH study tech into
>public schools when the public schools are using such hogwash
>techniques as "Whole Language" reading and "invented spelling."
I'm not sure what these techniques are, or what studies have been
done into their effectiveness to determine if they are hogwash
or not.
>I don't think that there is anything wrong with the beasic tennents of
>study tech, namely the the ideas of making sure every word is
>understood, making sure steps aren't skipped, and balancing actual
>application with the theory. The brainwashing comes in when students
>are taught that any disagreement results from misunderstood words.
Yes, there are a few problems with the (basic tenets?) of L. Ron
Hubbard's "Study Technology", namely, the over-emphasis on dictionary
use and the neglecting of the fact that language is learned through
context, that kids pick up thousands of words by placing them in
sentences in verbal and written speech and deductively, subconsciously,
working out their meanings.
This fact is denied by Hubbard, who says the only way to accumulate
language is to look up each word in a dictionary. This is factually
wrong; children rarely if ever look up words in dictionaries on their
way to picking up thousands of words; meanings are worked out from
sentences as "a bowl of gelid ice-cream" and "the gelid arctic", and
now we have an idea what "gelid" means.
Clay demos are useless for other training, although I will concede
that the arts are good for everyone, and learning to model clay is
just as useful as learning to paint, play an instrument, dance, or
any other expression of creativity in the arts. But Hubbard stretched
a point in saying that Plasticine[tm] models could help someone to
understand abstract ideas in every branch of learning. In reality,
modelling words like "to" with toy clay doesn't do much besides
teach people how to be creative.
>When I attended Scientology schools, quesiton "Do you have a
>misunderstood?" and threats of having to go back and find some words
>to clear discouraged crital thinking.
Exactly. Sometimes, it's just the text. You can word-clear "At the
gelid point, the jello sets" as many times as you want, but it
won't clear. Same for "To and is people the."
>I myself on occasion had to do word clrearing and other stupid drills
>when I did not agree with one of LRH's opinions.
Correct; so-called "Study Technology" is really used as a means of
indoctrination and subsuming the free spirit of inquiry. There are
many flaws in Hubbard's writings, and it's a sham to gloss these
over as "misunderstoods" and word-clearing and place the onus on the
students when in fact it is the teacher who should be more clear
and rational.
Jens Tingleff
> Martin Hunt <mar...@islandnet.com> wrote in article
<g4g9zMdl...@islandnet.com>...
>
[..]
>
> > Why must children wait until college to be taught the basics of
> > skepticism and science?
> Either because our system believes most people should be sheep, or
> simply because our schools do not want to face skepticism while *they*
> are trying to teach or indoctrinate children.
>
<chuckle>
Seriously, it's hard enough to teach kids anything (I come from a family of
teachers, I KNOW!). IHO, the sophistication to deal with ambiguities comes
with maturity, and one should be very careful about destabilising the trust
there should be between pupils and teachers.
I'm not saying that one should train sheep, I'm saying that one should not
- in the first history lesson - emphasise that history books are, by
definition, imperfect and that one should always look for the motivations
and hidden intentions of the author.
Once the pupils understand how to read a text (in general: absorb what a
piece of source material is conveying), they can be taught to get an
impression of the author from that text. Then they can be taught that -
sometimes - a text cannot tell "the truth".
The latter stages of this - being critical of sources - is something I was
taught in high school (age 15-18). This was hard work for many students
(myself included).
I *do* think that critical thinking skills should be taught and encouraged.
Sadly, it falls foul of the liking for simple answers which is the more
simple option and which is encouraged so very strongly by the mass media,
the politicians, the salespeople, etc.
See "Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media," a totally
brilliant Canadian (it sould be made outside the US ;-) ) film about
Chomsky and about his preoccupations with the media. Films like this should
be mandatory viewing for all people in their late teens.
They should be shown it so many times that they can repeat every sentence
in their sleep! They should be able to - robotically - murmur the mantra "I
can think for myself. I can think for myself"!! They should be brainwashed
into total acceptabce of the idiom that they should let no vested interest
control them!!!
Ahemm; you get the idea ;-)
Jens
------ No PGP signature, no authenticity. Vive La France!! ---------
http://www.imaginet.fr/~jensting/. Scientology[tm]?? Check it out at
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/mpoulter/scum.html *and*
http://www.scientology.org/. Report to alt.religion.scientology ;-)
Mike de Wolfe
Bev <dbj...@iag.net> wrote:
>One thing that a lot of the students DID learn from going to the
>Co$ school was how to yawn with their mouths SHUT! :-)
I'm laughing outloud at that one.
The funny thing is, once a student is taught that MU's cause yawns, it
becomes true. I know it is and is still true in my case.
But after I graduated from Rondroid shcool and went to WOG colleges,
many a time I found myself in a class where I KNOW the profressor was
talking in temrs over the heads of many in the class and NO ONE WAS
YAWNING!!
My conclusion is that the yawn reaction to misunderstood words is
something taught to study tech students.
Actually it is rather convenient for your subconcious to trigger a
physiological "alarm" when a misunderstood is passed.
But that got me thinking further:
How many OTHER problems Scientology addresses aren't problems until
Scientologists are taught that it's a problem?
Jens Tingleff
In article <3505eae2....@snews.zippo.com>,
be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>
[picked up through Dejanews because it's sensible enough to
temporarily suspend
the kill-file entry I have for Bernie ;-) ]
> jens...@imaginet.fr (Jens Tingleff) wrote in article
> <jensting-ya0240800...@snews2.zippo.com>:
>
[..]
>
> >and one should be very careful about destabilising the trust
> >there should be between pupils and teachers.
>
> >I'm not saying that one should train sheep,
>
> That's kind of what you are saying in the above sentence,
> though.
Kind of, but not exactly. I don't think it's an "either-or" situation,
but a
"some of this, some of that" situation. It's in the eye of the
beholder,
anyway..
>
> >I'm saying that one should not
> >- in the first history lesson - emphasise that history books are, by
> >definition, imperfect
>
> Why not?
>
A pupil might (very reasonably) say "if it's not accurate, I won't be
bothered
with reading it". Or worse ;-)
> >and that one should always look for the motivations
> >and hidden intentions of the author.
>
> Is that what you call "critical thinking", to speculate on
> "hidden intentions"? I certainly don't view it that way.
>
It's one - IMHO - important part. Another is to consider whether
something was
intentionally left out. Another is to try to find source materials
(fewer levels
of "editing").
I didn't mean to say that rooting out (your impression of) the
author's
motivation was the *only* component of critical reading. Critical
thinking comes
in in addition to critical reading.
>
> >The latter stages of this - being critical of sources - is something I was
> >taught in high school (age 15-18). This was hard work for many students
> >(myself included).
>
> So what where you told, specifically?
Not so much *told*, as encouraged to consider multiple history texts
covering
the same event(s) and speculate on accuracy and on the reasons for
discrepancies. One example was to study history texts about the
Russian
revolution and news reports about the events described in the history
texts (as
I remmeber it - been a while ;-) ).
>
> >I *do* think that critical thinking skills should be taught and encouraged.
>
> Me too, but certainly not the way you describe it. Which tend to
> turn my "me too" into a "me not", actually.
>
What?? Dissent?? "Off with his head!" ;-) ;-) ;-)
> >Sadly, it falls foul of the liking for simple answers which is the more
> >simple option and which is encouraged so very strongly by the mass media,
> >the politicians, the salespeople, etc.
>
> By human general ignorance. Where do you think that uncritical
> thinking comes from in the first place? It is sloppy thinking,
> quick acceptance, exploitation. All things *encouraged* by our
> society. It would be quite ironic if the same society would
> "teach" critical thinking. My take of it is that it teaches
> uncritical thinking by example instead.
Certainly, uncritical thinking is demonstrated far too often for
comfort. When I
say encouraged, it's because politicians *like* us to dumb down to the
level of
their public announcements (rather than ask ourselves how come they
could say
the things they do). It's also encouraged by people driven by the
goold old
"profit motive"[1].
In Denmark, "society" - through the school system which has nation-
wide
curriculae and teaching guide-lines - *does* attempt to teach some
semblance of
critical thinking skills. I like this! It's hardly as successful as
I'd like it
to be, but they do try.
I am - fortunately - mildly ignorant about the school system(s) of the
US (is
cheer-leading still a part of the curriculum for girls in high school
??).
Otherwise, I would have made harsher comments about that ;-)
>
> >See "Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media," a totally
> >brilliant Canadian (it sould be made outside the US ;-) ) film about
> >Chomsky and about his preoccupations with the media. Films like this should
> >be mandatory viewing for all people in their late teens.
>
> How to teach critical thinking without that itself becomes
> indoctrination is a very difficult point. What may be a blessing
> to start with, may very well turn out to be a most damning
> thing.
Quite. Which is why I think that maturity is required in the student.
It's all
too easy for the students to throw up their hands when they're asked
to consider
whether anything can be trusted (including - by implication - the
texts which
encourages them to be critical).
Jens
[1] I know, I know, the "profit motive" has been used in itself as an
excuse of
the (European) left to discredit anything more libetarian than former
Eastern
Germany. Thus, any call on the "profit motive" is tainted. Tough! That
said,
it's good fun to watch the connections between vested interests in,
say, the
media (e.g. newspapers owned by R Murdoch plugging TV stations owned
by R
Murdoch - to take an example relevant to the UK).
------ No PGP signature, no authenticity. Vive La France!! ---------
http://www.imaginet.fr/~jensting/. Scientology[tm]?? Check it out at
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/mpoulter/scum.html *and*
http://www.scientology.org/. Report to alt.religion.scientology ;-)
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Martin Hunt
In article <5t8puq$s...@examiner.concentric.net>,
mwo...@rpf.org (Mike de Wolfe) wrote:
>Bev <dbj...@iag.net> wrote:
>
>>One thing that a lot of the students DID learn from going to the
>>Co$ school was how to yawn with their mouths SHUT! :-)
>
>I'm laughing outloud at that one.
This is true! Bev, I don't know whether to thank you or curse
you, but this sure brought back memories of "education"
Scientology-style.
Everyone in that class could yawn without opening their mouths; it's
a trick to cover drawing the immediate and unwelcome attention of
the sup. Going past MUs is, after all, an ethics offense as per
policy.
The yawn-without-yawning is done with a breath in through the
nose, an opening down of the throat, a few ear-pops, and back
out through the nose; I remember it well!
Of course, everyone knows that yawning is a sign of tiredness and
has nothing to do with misunderstoods, even in Scientology, and, of
course, Scientologists are always tired due to sleep deprivation in
the cult. I'm surprised that these fake yawns to fool the supervisors
didn't result in more overts and withholds written up in O/Ws or
coming off in session.
Hey, Scientologists reading this; why the fake yawns? You know
what I'm talking about; we all did them, and you're doing them
right now if you're on course, or you can at least remember doing
them the last time you did a course. What does that mean? Look
at it! Just stop and directly look at it! Now, walk out the door.
Scientology has just been proven to be fake from the ground up.
I mean, if Study Technology is wrong and false and everything else
is based on that foundation, what do you get? Anyway, your English
is hardly any better now than it ever was - admit it. At least to
yourself.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. Warning - mailrules: subject must have "Xenu"
Just the FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282
Diane Richardson
On Mon, 18 Aug 1997 03:51:35 -0600, Jens Tingleff
<jens...@imaginet.fr> wrote:
[snip]
>I am - fortunately - mildly ignorant about the school system(s) of the
>US (is cheer-leading still a part of the curriculum for girls in high school
>??).
It never has been, at least not in any of the school districts with
which I'm familiar.
>Otherwise, I would have made harsher comments about that ;-)
The major difference between public schools in the U.S. and those of
European countries is in their governance.
In the U.S., schools are governed by local school boards. These
boards are made up of people in the community who are voted into
office. To keep their positions, they must regularly stand for
re-election.
State law, rather than federal law, governs the administration of
schools in the U.S. The amount of influence the federal government
has on local school districts is quite limited. The federal
government can dispense and withhold funds from local school districts
if they do not meet certain requirements. These federal funds,
however, are not large; consequently, the federal government has very
limited control over public schools.
Depending upon state law, the large bulk of public school funding
comes from state or local taxes, not from federal taxes. Because of
this, control of public schools largely remains in local hands.
The basic philosophical difference between the U.S. and European
educational system is that the U.S. bases its system on the concept
that the local community knows best how to educate its children.
There are, of course, severe deficiencies in this philosophy, but it
does insure that parents have a greater opportunity to influence what
their own children are taught.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
wynot
On Mon, 18 Aug 1997 06:22:34 GMT, mwo...@rpf.org (Mike de Wolfe)
wrote:
>
>How many OTHER problems Scientology addresses aren't problems until
>Scientologists are taught that it's a problem?
As near as I can tell from conversations with my scieno friend, pretty
much all of them. I have been told over and over about the
psychologist's conspiracy to destroy America by ruining the
educational system and making kids stupider, for example. But when I
checked at various edu related websites and in newspapers and
magazines, I discovered that kids here mostly get a pretty good
education, right about average in international terms. The greatest
failures seem to be in places where funds are lacking, such as inner
cities and deeply rural areas. I also learned that while american
primary and high schools do a poor job teaching mathematics, the
lacking is made up for at the college and university levels so that
graduating classes are as proficient as graduates in other
industrialized nations.
I guess the psychs are doing a pretty lousy job!
'Til next time;
wynot
When one cannot make up one's mind as to an individual, a group,
organization or project a Condition of Doubt exists. The formula is:
1.Inform oneself honestly of the actual intentions and activities of
that individual, group, project or organization brushing aside all
bias and rumor.
2.Examine the statistics of the individual, group, project or
organization. 3.Decide on the basis of `the greatest good for the
greatest number of dynamics' whether or not it should be attacked,
harmed, suppressed or helped.
Then after one had examined the statistics of the group one currently
belonged to, one would, Join or remain in or befriend the one which
progresses toward the greatest number of dynamics and announce it
publicly to both sides.
Mike de Wolfe
"David Fabian" <dfa...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>> Why must children wait until college to be taught the basics of
>> skepticism and science?
>Either because our system believes most people should be sheep, or
>simply because our schools do not want to face skepticism while *they*
>are trying to teach or indoctrinate children.
Listen to public school teachers, and they will tell you that it's
parents who don't want their chirldren to question beliefs taught at
home.
Warrior
In article <5t8puq$s...@examiner.concentric.net>, mwo...@rpf.org says...
>
>Bev <dbj...@iag.net> wrote:
>
>>One thing that a lot of the students DID learn from going to the
>>Co$ school was how to yawn with their mouths SHUT! :-)
>
>I'm laughing outloud at that one.
>
>becomes true. I know it is and is still true in my case.
>
>But after I graduated from Rondroid shcool and went to WOG colleges,
>many a time I found myself in a class where I KNOW the profressor was
>talking in temrs over the heads of many in the class and NO ONE WAS
>YAWNING!!
>
>My conclusion is that the yawn reaction to misunderstood words is
>something taught to study tech students.
>
>Actually it is rather convenient for your subconcious to trigger a
>physiological "alarm" when a misunderstood is passed.
>
>But that got me thinking further:
>
>Scientologists are taught that it's a problem?
How about the HCOB 10 June 1966 Issue II "S&D-The Missed Item" wherein
Hubbard lied saying:
"ILLNESS=ONLY PTS" and "ONLY PTS=ILLNESS" (caps in original)
Here's another damned lie from HCOB 12 March 1968 "Mistakes, Anatomy Of"
in which Hubbard stated:
"People making mistakes or doing stupid things is evidence that an SP
exists in that vicinity."
Here's a beauty of a lie from HCOB 22 May 1969 "Dianetics - Its Background:
"It [Dianetics and Scientology] is the only game in the universe where
everyone wins."
In this same HCOB Hubbard wrote yet again more lies, saying:
"Press, controlled by governments and intelligence services and the
'very best people', lied endlessly about Dianetics (and Scientology)."
and
"Dianetics is not only the first mental science developed in the West,
it is the first mental science on the planet that uniformly produces
beneficial results."
Warrior
Bernie
Jens Tingleff <jens...@imaginet.fr> wrote in article
<871892...@dejanews.com>:
>In article <3505eae2....@snews.zippo.com>, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>> jens...@imaginet.fr (Jens Tingleff) wrote in article >jensting-ya0240800...@snews2.zippo.com>:
>> >and one should be very careful about destabilising the trust
>> >there should be between pupils and teachers.
>> >I'm not saying that one should train sheep,
>> That's kind of what you are saying in the above sentence,
>> though.
>Kind of, but not exactly. I don't think it's an "either-or" situation,
>but a "some of this, some of that" situation. It's in the eye of the
>beholder, anyway..
As with anything.
>> >I'm saying that one should not
>> >- in the first history lesson - emphasise that history books are, by
>> >definition, imperfect
>> Why not?
>A pupil might (very reasonably) say "if it's not accurate, I won't be
>bothered with reading it". Or worse ;-)
I see. It also is my point that to teach critical thinking,
whatever that means is very dependent both on the ability of the
teacher to get it through without injecting his own bias, and on
the pupil to get it without inducing his own twist, as in the
example you refer to. Looks like a near impossible situation to
me.
>> >and that one should always look for the motivations
>> >and hidden intentions of the author.
>> Is that what you call "critical thinking", to speculate on
>> "hidden intentions"? I certainly don't view it that way.
>It's one - IMHO - important part. Another is to consider whether
>something was intentionally left out. Another is to try to find source materials
>(fewer levels of "editing").
>I didn't mean to say that rooting out (your impression of) the
>author's motivation was the *only* component of critical reading. Critical
>thinking comes in in addition to critical reading.
But this precludes the possibility that the author simply is on
a wrong track himself, without necessarily having any evil
intent. I frankly don't see where the author's intent and
motivation comes anywhere in the balance.
My *own* motivation, however, comes very much in the balance.
How do I need to hear only certain part of what is said, or to
believe certain aspects and resist questioning them? That's a
considerably more relevant aspect, IMO.
You can not know for sure what the motivation of the author is.
Even if your opinion about that may come very close from the
truth, there are only very little you can base yourself to be
absolutely sure about that. Hell, do we always know our *own*
motivations to start with? Honestly?
Maybe what you mean to say is the need to consider that the
author *may* not have our best interest at heart and that there
is a possibility that what he says may be biased or
exploitative, or himself deluded, and that therefore we should
exercise cautions in our trust. But that's completely different.
In this example, I am not speculating as to whether the author
does or not have less than an honest intent, I just assume that
it is an abstract possibility, one out of many, and that's all
there is to it. The arguments should *still* be evaluated as
such.
>> >The latter stages of this - being critical of sources - is something I was
>> >taught in high school (age 15-18). This was hard work for many students
>> >(myself included).
>> So what where you told, specifically?
>Not so much *told*, as encouraged to consider multiple history texts
>covering the same event(s) and speculate on accuracy and on the reasons for
>discrepancies.
This sounds like a good approach.
>One example was to study history texts about the Russian
>revolution and news reports about the events described in the history texts (as
>I remmeber it - been a while ;-) ).
>> >Sadly, it falls foul of the liking for simple answers which is the more
>> >simple option and which is encouraged so very strongly by the mass media,
>> >the politicians, the salespeople, etc.
>> By human general ignorance. Where do you think that uncritical
>> thinking comes from in the first place? It is sloppy thinking,
>> quick acceptance, exploitation. All things *encouraged* by our
>> society. It would be quite ironic if the same society would
>> "teach" critical thinking. My take of it is that it teaches
>> uncritical thinking by example instead.
>Certainly, uncritical thinking is demonstrated far too often for
>comfort. When I say encouraged, it's because politicians *like* us to dumb down to the
>level of their public announcements (rather than ask ourselves how come they
>could say the things they do).
They are humans.
> It's also encouraged by people driven by the goold old
>"profit motive"[1].
Certainly. I doubt any advertizer's aim is to bring us to think
critically about their product.
>In Denmark, "society" - through the school system which has nation-wide
>curriculae and teaching guide-lines - *does* attempt to teach some semblance of
>critical thinking skills. I like this! It's hardly as successful as I'd like it
>to be, but they do try.
I guess that the only thing one can do is to try, all the while
being aware of its limits and potential pitfalls.
>> How to teach critical thinking without that itself becomes
>> indoctrination is a very difficult point. What may be a blessing
>> to start with, may very well turn out to be a most damning
>> thing.
>Quite. Which is why I think that maturity is required in the student.
Ach, a contradiction in term, methink. The end (maturity) is
needed to adequately start into the subject. That's part of the
problem.
>It's all too easy for the students to throw up their hands when they're asked
>to consider whether anything can be trusted (including - by implication - the
>texts which encourages them to be critical).
It is true that schools leave the student largely unprepared for
life. I would think that there is a kind of cultural shock when
he leaves school and start University (or High School as I
suppose it is called in the US). He goes from a protected and
structured environment to an unstructured one, where it only is
dependent on him as to whether he assists to the lessons or not,
where he often has to find his own accommodation far from his
family, etc..
This often makes him vulnerable for the lure of those who can
offer him a new security. The school only gave him a minimum of
intellectual, academic luggage, but usually have taught him very
little about life itself. But whether this is really the role of
the school, and whether such a formation to life can adequately
be brought about without engendering new, and maybe worse,
problems remains to be seen.
Bernie
Bernie
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote in article
<33f7107c...@snews.zippo.com>:
>On Sun, 17 Aug 1997 12:20:52 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>>>Sadly, it falls foul of the liking for simple answers which is the more
>>>simple option and which is encouraged so very strongly by the mass media,
>>>the politicians, the salespeople, etc.
>>By human general ignorance. Where do you think that uncritical
>>thinking comes from in the first place? It is sloppy thinking,
>>quick acceptance, exploitation. All things *encouraged* by our
>>society. It would be quite ironic if the same society would
>>"teach" critical thinking. My take of it is that it teaches
>>uncritical thinking by example instead.
>I'm not so quick to condemn all of "society" for this tendency,
>Bernie, or to blame it entirely on politicians, salespeople, etc.
True. "Society" is too general, and I guess that there would be
faction of it that would encourage critical thinking, and other
that would discourage it. I have also seen very big differences
between politicians. All in all, I think that it is more a
question of individual matter.
Whether critical thinking can be taught or not, I am not sure,
though, anymore than I am not sure that love can be taught.
I remember when I was in school we use to have "religion" class.
This was for those who were catholics. For the others (which
would include me), there were "moral" class, where we used to
discuss moral issues like the death penalty, etc.
I suppose that it would be in this context that critical
thinking could be taught, at least for the non-religious ones. I
am also confident that if it was what the teacher would be
interested in teaching, he would be allowed. These classes were
very much depending upon the teacher's individual interest and
its ability to lead discussions.
>I've recently witnessed first-hand efforts made by a junior-level
>school (ages 12-15) to alter both the curriculum and teaching methods
>to encourage more critical and independent thinking from students.
As such, it sounds good. I don't know how it would be
practically applied, though.
>The changes made were minor -- they certainly were not radical in any
>sense of the word -- and they were being made by a faculty that had
>long experience (15 years and more) teaching in the same school in the
>same community. The teachers themselves were long-term residents of
>the community, shared the same basic values as the larger community,
>and in most instances had children of their own educated at the
>school.
>These changes engendered protest from a small but very vocal minority.
But what were the changes effectively?
>Small and vocal enough to get television coverage when they picketed
>the school, disrupted school board meetings, etc.
>The faculty had nearly unanimous support from "politicians," and
>certainly from the school superintendant. The dissent came from a
>very small but very loud group of right-wing fringe-type people --
>ultraconservatives, conspiracy kooks, religious fundamentalists, and
>the like.
IOW, those incapable of thinking critically.
>The objections raised by these people was that the schools should not
>be permitted to inject "value-laden" material into the curriculum.
That's where I suspect the point of contention would be.
>They believe that schools should be restricted to teaching "facts."
At first sight, it seems like a sensible argument.
>Encouraging students to evaluate what they learn rather than repeating
>memorized "facts" should not be allowed.
This sounds strange. I am not a specialist in this field, but I
think that this is more the trend nowadays over here: not to
accumulate memorized knowledge, but rather to make logical
deductions from facts.
BTW, I believe that this is an aspect that I developed most
(although some people may contest that) by learning to play
chess early in my life.
Another thing that helped in this respect, I think, was to learn
how to program a computer. The slightest mistake you make can
launch you into a bug hunt for the whole night. To develop an
algorithm without first working out the formulas can represent a
serious waste of time too.
But the most useful thing from far, however, was to learn to
listen and to observe. I still think that this is the most
important aspect of all. In some respect, it would trigger more
some kind of "intuitive" knowledge that would lead the logical
thought process rather than to lose one's way into purely
intellectual meanders that can become quite tortuous.
>The diciplines that came
>under attack most often were English literature and composition and
>the social studies -- history and citizenship.
>The dissenters believe that asking the students to do any more than
>answer factual questions based on material should not be allowed.
I think that I understand why they would think like that.
>They believe that asking a student, "When was the U.S. Constitution
>ratified?" is an appropriate question. To ask a student "What does
>the First Amendment mean to you?" is inappropriate and should not be
>permitted.
But it is a difficult question, indeed. That's what I was
pointing to: how to teach critical thinking without falling in
the trap of conflict of values, or even indoctrination? I don't
really have an answer as to how to achieve that systematically
(i.e. independently from the teacher's own abilities),
We also have to distinguish between (1) a separate class about
critical thinking and (2) critical thinking being applied
horizontally across all subjects as part of the methodology
itself.
You seem to be speaking about (2), while I initially thought
more about (1).
>The example I witnessed first-hand is not a solitary incident. It is
>being repeated hundreds of times across the United States, by very
>well-organized groups.
I would like to understand the arguments of these groups. If I
understand correctly, they are afraid that a value system will
be injected in school under the guise of critical thinking,
isn't it? You have described what they do, but not the rationale
behind their actions.
>Sadly, at the time when this country most
>needs a citizenry capable of critical thinking, there is a concerted
>campaign to deny such skills to its young people
From what I understand out of what you write, the campaign isn't
so much to deny these skills to the young people, but more to
prevent the subject being taught in schools.
I am quite confident that the same people who thus object are
very ready to teach their children their own brand of "critical
thinking" out of school. If they are fundamentalists, this will
be to believe unconditionally into Jesus. If they are
anti-cultist, they will teach them all about "mind-control" and
learn them to see the "evil intention" or the manipulative cult
leader. If they are skeptics, this would be to accept nothing
for granted and maybe that all religions are fraud, etc, etc.
Again, I think that it is a matter of individual ability. Let's
say that such classes would be allowed in school, either as a
separate class or across the board through different subjects.
If the teacher is good, problems are few. But if he isn't good
or is maybe even biased, what to do? Instead of being taught
critical thinking, this may have the exact reverse effect. And
the problem is that a system as such is not a guarantee that
this won't happen.
If these questions are not resolved before hand, problems such
as those you described are likely to happen.
Bernie
Jens Tingleff
> On Mon, 18 Aug 1997 03:51:35 -0600, Jens Tingleff
> <jens...@imaginet.fr> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >I am - fortunately - mildly ignorant about the school system(s) of the
> >US (is cheer-leading still a part of the curriculum for girls in high school
> >??).
>
> It never has been, at least not in any of the school districts with
> which I'm familiar.
>
I'm glad!
> The major difference between public schools in the U.S. and those of
> European countries is in their governance.
>
> In the U.S., schools are governed by local school boards. These
> boards are made up of people in the community who are voted into
> office. To keep their positions, they must regularly stand for
> re-election.
>
[...]
In the country with which I'm very familiar with the school system, the
situation is not *that* different. Since Denmark is only a measly 5 million
inhabitants, Danish state control seems much the same as per-state control
in the US.
In Denmark, parents sit on local school boards (and are elected). Decisions
about curriculum are made by the relevant state body, but any special
activities (experiments etc) are to be cleared by the school board. My dad
was on the board of my school, and (was one board member who) scotched an
attempt to use the Danish equivalent of Playboy in the Danish teaching (in
my class, too!). The teacher thought that the kids would have the maturity
to look through the exploitation of weomen, and all that. Quite frankly,
I'm not so sure ;-) ;-) The girls might have had, but this boy didn't (age
13-14)....
The only statement about which I feel confortable, is that Europe differes
widely from country to country. For instance, I don't think that the Danish
teacher above - as a member of the Danish CP - would be allowed to teach in
Germany in equivalent circumstances.
[..]
> The basic philosophical difference between the U.S. and European
> educational system is that the U.S. bases its system on the concept
> that the local community knows best how to educate its children.
> There are, of course, severe deficiencies in this philosophy, but it
> does insure that parents have a greater opportunity to influence what
> their own children are taught.
IMHO, it's not so much the problem of the philosophy, as it's the problem
of where to set the limit. I'm in favour of state[1]-set curriculae,
teaching and marking guidelines, and parent/local possibility of *some*
control. A well designed curriculum should only take up - say - 80% of the
teaching time, and the teachers should - locally - figure out what to do
with the remaining time. Not-so-coincidentally, that's pretty much the
system in which I was brought up ;-)
Jens
[1] that would be country/länder/"regions" in Europe and states in the US
Mike de Wolfe
mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) wrote:
>Everyone in that class could yawn without opening their mouths; it's
>a trick to cover drawing the immediate and unwelcome attention of
>the sup. Going past MUs is, after all, an ethics offense as per
>policy.
>The yawn-without-yawning is done with a breath in through the
>nose, an opening down of the throat, a few ear-pops, and back
>out through the nose; I remember it well!
Don't forget to put your hand on your chin to obscure that tell-tale
jaw shake!
>Of course, everyone knows that yawning is a sign of tiredness and
>has nothing to do with misunderstoods, even in Scientology, and, of
>course, Scientologists are always tired due to sleep deprivation in
>the cult.
I don't know about anyone else, but misunderstoods CAN trigger yawns
in myself. Not ALL of my yawns are caused by misunderstoods, despite
what "SOURCE" says, but hearing words I don't know can trigger a
yawning response in me.
>Scientology has just been proven to be fake from the ground up.
>I mean, if Study Technology is wrong and false and everything else
>is based on that foundation, what do you get?
My point was even more insidious. I was indocronated to believe that
MUs cause yawns, and it became true in my case. It is not true for
most people until they receive Study Tech training. It is taght to
them and it becomes real to them.
People come to Scientology with problems that are real to them such as
drug problems, communication problems, and emotional issues stemming
from screwed up parents and families. Those problems are real to
them, and Scn providesan answer. Not necessisarily the best answer,
certainly not the only answer available but an answer nevertheless.
When scientologists have been indochrinated enough to believe anything
they hear or read as long as it has LRH's name on it, they are taught
that the reason they don't have superhuman abilities is that the evil
Xenu blew up millions of poor souls on this planet 75 million years
ago. They are taught that they have a problem, and the church sells
its answer for it.
Of course, if you don't believe in body thetans, if their existance is
never taught to you, you don't need to pay big dollars to have them
removed!
It is like LRH write in the first pages of FEAR. The main character
remarks that demons are invented by witch doctors who can then get
rich by getting rid of them.
Martin Hunt
In article <5tgji8$m...@chronicle.concentric.net>,
mwo...@rpf.org (Mike de Wolfe) wrote:
>Don't forget to put your hand on your chin to obscure that tell-tale
>jaw shake!
Mike, I did that too. Ex-Scientologist rundown:
1. Drill yawning with your mouth wide open and your head tilted back.
Realize that yawning is a natural phenomenon that has nothing to do
with words. Cognite that most mammalian species yawn.
(add more!)
>I don't know about anyone else, but misunderstoods CAN trigger yawns
>in myself. Not ALL of my yawns are caused by misunderstoods, despite
>what "SOURCE" says, but hearing words I don't know can trigger a
>yawning response in me.
>
>My point was even more insidious. I was indocronated to believe that
>MUs cause yawns, and it became true in my case. It is not true for
>most people until they receive Study Tech training. It is taght to
>them and it becomes real to them.
Isn't it weird? Over time, it all becomes more real to the cult
members. This same thing is at work with F/Ns. Have you done much
auditing? It's a well-known phenomenon in Scientology that people
who have had more hours of auditing F/N (floating needle; a rhythmic,
lazy swing of the needle back and forth in an irregular pattern)
more easily than newcomers to the art. In Scientology, this is
attributed to "case gain" on the therapy "bridge", but in reality,
it is merely a learned response.
>People come to Scientology with problems that are real to them such as
>drug problems, communication problems, and emotional issues stemming
>from screwed up parents and families. Those problems are real to
>them, and Scn providesan answer. Not necessisarily the best answer,
>certainly not the only answer available but an answer nevertheless.
>
>When scientologists have been indochrinated enough to believe anything
>they hear or read as long as it has LRH's name on it, they are taught
>that the reason they don't have superhuman abilities is that the evil
>Xenu blew up millions of poor souls on this planet 75 million years
>ago. They are taught that they have a problem, and the church sells
>its answer for it.
>
>Of course, if you don't believe in body thetans, if their existance is
>never taught to you, you don't need to pay big dollars to have them
>removed!
>
>It is like LRH write in the first pages of FEAR. The main character
>remarks that demons are invented by witch doctors who can then get
>rich by getting rid of them.
He revealed himself too much in that one, Mike!
ttyl,
martin.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. Warning - mailrules: subject must have "Xenu"
Just the FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282
The Cult in Canada: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/1332
ARSCC Photo Gallery: http://www.islandnet.com/~martinh/arscc.htm
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Xenu Rama
Yawning after passing by a misunderstood work (MU) is mental conditioning
by scientology. It is designed to increase one's own feeling of
helplessness and to increase a dependency on the cult. It is along the
same lines as Na-na-you-flinched during bull-baiting. The cult victim
is encouraged to abandon his or her own feelings in favor ofpre-programmed
scientology conditioning.
Joe Cisar
Scott Goehring
"Mike" == Mike de Wolfe <mwo...@rpf.org> writes:
Mike> How many OTHER problems Scientology addresses aren't problems until
Mike> Scientologists are taught that it's a problem?
Doesn't Scientology promise to help you solve problems you didn't even
know you had? :)
--
The ARSCC -- http://www.arscc.com/ -- We Don't Exist
Mike de Wolfe
mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) wrote:
>In article <5tgji8$m...@chronicle.concentric.net>,
>> I was indocronated to believe that
>>MUs cause yawns, and it became true in my case. It is not true for
>>most people until they receive Study Tech training. It is taght to
>>them and it becomes real to them.
>Isn't it weird? Over time, it all becomes more real to the cult
>members. This same thing is at work with F/Ns. Have you done much
>auditing? It's a well-known phenomenon in Scientology that people
>who have had more hours of auditing F/N (floating needle; a rhythmic,
>lazy swing of the needle back and forth in an irregular pattern)
>more easily than newcomers to the art. In Scientology, this is
>attributed to "case gain" on the therapy "bridge", but in reality,
>it is merely a learned response.
So E-metered auditing is a form of bio-feedback, in which the PC
learns to produced the desired needle effect. Look what kind of
trouble you can get intowhen you don't apply the scientific method?
Mmmm, that get's me thinking:
How do you cause a Scientologist to have a nervious breakdown?
Have the Scientologist Method 9 the scientific method!!!
Mike de Wolfe
wy...@cyberatl.net (wynot) wrote:
>As near as I can tell from conversations with my scieno friend, pretty
>much all of them. I have been told over and over about the
>psychologist's conspiracy to destroy America by ruining the
>educational system and making kids stupider, for example.
I recently looked at the latest crop of Scn literature about the
psyciatric conspiracy. They are completely blind to the strong
resembance this material has to Nazi literature about the so-called
Jewish conspiracy.
>But when I
>checked at various edu related websites and in newspapers and
>magazines, I discovered that kids here mostly get a pretty good
>education, right about average in international terms.
When I attended Scn high school, I made the mistake of asking just
where LRH gets his statistics about kids getting dumber. After they
were sure I didn't have an MU, I spent a half hour on a stupid
"Learning Drill" giving examples of how it might and might not be
true. I finally said "OK, we don't know where he got that, but that's
what he said," so I could move on.
Mike de Wolfe
be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>Going past MUs is an ethic offense as per policy? In which
>policy does it say that?
Don't know. I think Martin said that.
>How is that different than the belief of yawn and
>misunderstanding? It's just an accepted belief, as the yawn one.
>Scientologists also belief they evolved from clam, don't they?
>And this much sooner than the OT levels. I don't think you need
>any of more indoctrination to accept the Xenu story than to
>accept any other ludicrous belief of Scn.
Not necessary. The beliefs taght at the lower levels of scientology
make more logical sense, even if they may be untrue. For example, it
is obvious that you can't unterstand what you are reading if you don't
understand many of the words. Therefore, if you run to the dictionary
every time you see a word you don't know, you'll understand stuff
better. Makes sense right?
Another entry-level tech is the ARC Triangle and the Tone Scale. That
grief would he hight than anger (or is it the other way around?) has
no basis in objective reality, but it does have appeal to those who
would like to make sense of something like emotions which often fefy
logic.
The clam story is from the book "A History of Man." Although this
book is not confidential - anyone can walk into an org and buy it,
Scientologists are not asked to read it until they are doing the upper
levels - where the secret Xenu story is. According to a credible
source, HOM is required reading on OT VIII.
So some Scn beliefs are more credible than others. And the more
ludicrous it is, the higher on the Bridge it is introduced.
>>It is like LRH write in the first pages of FEAR. The main character
>>remarks that demons are invented by witch doctors who can then get
>>rich by getting rid of them.
>That would be interesting to read. Do you have the original
>quote?
I don't have a copy of FEAR, but it is available at libraries and
regular book stores.
Martin Hunt
In article <5tjcdt$q...@chronicle.concentric.net>,
mwo...@rpf.org (Mike de Wolfe) wrote:
>So E-metered auditing is a form of bio-feedback, in which the PC
>learns to produced the desired needle effect. Look what kind of
>trouble you can get intowhen you don't apply the scientific method?
>
>Mmmm, that get's me thinking:
>
>How do you cause a Scientologist to have a nervious breakdown?
>
>Have the Scientologist Method 9 the scientific method!!!
:-)
Scientologists have been so indoctrinated into pseudoscience
that it would be very hard for them to learn how science really
works and stay in the cult. The cognitive dissonance caused by
attempting to hold these two mutually exclusive welantanschauungs
in their consciousness at the same time would cause them to reject
one of the other.
"You mean truth is based on evidence? Research? Studies? Math?
But I can't find any of that in the fields of Dianetics and
Scientology!" <blow>
Or, more likely:
"All this wog 'science' crap is insane; look where it got man
in thousands of years. Exactly nowhere! Wog science brought us
the atom bomb and the psych with his icepick! Give me the workable
technology of Scientology any day!"
--
Cogito, ergo sum. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/1332
"People who would aspire to transform the world should start by
transforming their own life and let it serve as an inspiration for
others. Hubbard wrote best about what he most needed to learn."
- Joe Harrington <joe...@worldnet.att.net>
Bernie
mwo...@rpf.org (Mike de Wolfe) wrote in article
<5tjdpj$t...@chronicle.concentric.net>:
>When I attended Scn high school,
What is a Scn high school?
Bernie
Mike de Wolfe
mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) wrote:
>Scientologists have been so indoctrinated into pseudoscience
>that it would be very hard for them to learn how science really
>works and stay in the cult. The cognitive dissonance caused by
>attempting to hold these two mutually exclusive welantanschauungs
>in their consciousness at the same time would cause them to reject
>one of the other......
>"All this wog 'science' crap is insane; look where it got man
>in thousands of years. Exactly nowhere! Wog science brought us
>the atom bomb and the psych with his icepick! Give me the workable
>technology of Scientology any day!"
I have heard this one. The other one I get is:
"Ron HAS done all the scientific studies. He was just too busy to
write it up in the format for scientific journals."
Mike de Wolfe
mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) wrote:
>In article <5tjdpj$t...@chronicle.concentric.net>,
>mwo...@rpf.org (Mike de Wolfe) wrote:
>I remember that drill! It was used to basically remove the certainty
>someone had on any particular issue, and so make them more
>receptive to the Message from the Great Man. It is described in
>a BTB from 10 Dec 1970, _The Learning Drill_, revised and reissued
>or otherwise.
The EP of this drill for me was that absolute statments are rarely
true. Unfortunatly for the Church, it undermined my confidence in the
Great Man.
>Another thing that is used along these lines is called False Data
>Stripping; it's a metered action where the person is asked to
>track down moments they were given "false data" (data contradictory
>to what Hubbard said), and let go of it. The "true data" (from
>Hubbard, of course) was then instilled. I learned to do this
>and ran it on quite a few students, as well as had a fair amount
>of it myself; I believe it to be a somewhat effective means of
>brainwashing the mark used by the cult.
What happens when one of Hubbard's unattributed declarations
contradicts data from a credible source, such as scientific studies?
Not all data comes from psychs.
What happens when someone who learned the scientific method prior to
joining scientology is aksed to reject scientifically proven data in
favor of Hubbard's psudoscience?
A few years ago I met a medical doctor who was now a full time
Scientologist. I was dying to ask him the above question.
Mike de Wolfe
mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) wrote:
>>It is hard to fault the the idea of introducing LRH study tech into
>>public schools when the public schools are using such hogwash
>>techniques as "Whole Language" reading and "invented spelling."
>I'm not sure what these techniques are, or what studies have been
>done into their effectiveness to determine if they are hogwash
>or not.
Whole language techique throws out phonetics and teaches children to
read simply by recognizing the word, rather than sounding it out. It
also teaches that chilren learn to read best the same way they learn
to talk; entirely by context. Grammar rules were no longer taught.
Invented spelling holds that you shouldn't thawrt creativity by
criticising incorrect spelling, so anything goes.
this iz y u somtimz see riting lik this on the Internet
What studies show the effectiveness of these techniques? NONE!
These theories originated in the ivory towers of the educational
establishment several years ago, and the State of California adopted
them without any studies to prove their effectiveness. These theories
were adopted through a process remarkably like Scientology - an
Authority likes the sound of them, so they are adopted as official
policy.
The result was crashing test scores and semiliterate students. A
newspaper caused a contraversy last year when it printed unedited
several letters written by local high school students.
The California Board of Education has since admitted that Whole
Language was a big mistake, and is re-adopting phonics as the way to
teach reading.
>>I don't think that there is anything wrong with the beasic tennents of
>>study tech, namely the the ideas of making sure every word is
>>understood, making sure steps aren't skipped, and balancing actual
>>application with the theory. The brainwashing comes in when students
>>are taught that any disagreement results from misunderstood words.
>Yes, there are a few problems with the (basic tenets?) of L. Ron
>Hubbard's "Study Technology", namely, the over-emphasis on dictionary
>use and the neglecting of the fact that language is learned through
>context, that kids pick up thousands of words by placing them in
>sentences in verbal and written speech and deductively, subconsciously,
>working out their meanings.
Sometimes it works, and sometimes the meaning cannot be accurately
deduced from the context, leaving a hole in the understanding of the
material. Also, an incorrect meaning can be deduced, causing
confusion.
>This fact is denied by Hubbard, who says the only way to accumulate
>language is to look up each word in a dictionary.
Yes, this is another example of an absolute statement from LRH.
Statements that contain the words "always" or "never" are seldom (but
not never) true.
>Clay demos are useless for other training, although I will concede
>that the arts are good for everyone, and learning to model clay is
>just as useful as learning to paint, play an instrument, dance, or
>any other expression of creativity in the arts. But Hubbard stretched
>a point in saying that Plasticine[tm] models could help someone to
>understand abstract ideas in every branch of learning. In reality,
>modelling words like "to" with toy clay doesn't do much besides
>teach people how to be creative.
For me they wasted a lot of time and killed momentem when I was really
moveing swiftly through studies. Clay demos are at best a placebo.
>Correct; so-called "Study Technology" is really used as a means of
>indoctrination and subsuming the free spirit of inquiry. There are
>many flaws in Hubbard's writings, and it's a sham to gloss these
>over as "misunderstoods" and word-clearing and place the onus on the
>students when in fact it is the teacher who should be more clear
>and rational.
I'll conceed that Study Tech overemphasizes the dictionary, but
traditional education under emphasizes it. I was recently in a
computer networking class that was hard for me to follow until we
received a book with a glossary on the third day.
When schools adopt techniques like "whole language." they are going to
the extreme in the opposite direction. Recent Applied Scholastic
literature takes a lot of pot shots at Whole Language, and
unfortunatly, they're right. If I had to choose between a Study Tech
classroom and a Whole Language classroom for my kids, I'd have to pick
study tech.
Mike de Wolfe
Xenu Rama <fi...@innernet.net> wrote:
I'll have to partially disagree. Yawning is a mental conditioning,
but it itself only makes you dependant on dictionaries ;-)
As for the Training Routines, I believe they can teach good
communication skills, provided that perfect execution of the drill
isn't stressed over the skill it is supposed to teach. The
expression "have your TRs in" places too much importance on the
drills.
Mike de Wolfe
be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>What is a Scn high school?
I spent most of my high school years at private schools that prided
themselves on the use of LRH Study Technology (TM).
These schools were offically nondemominational, claiming that
Scientology was not taugt, but students attending these schools still
received heavey doses of Scientology indocrination.
Mike de Wolfe
mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) wrote:
>"Germans are Nazis"
A textbook example of A=A
It is sad how people who pride themselves on how they have risen above
"wog" aberrative thinking are completely unable to recognize
aberration coming from their own leaders.
Mike de Wolfe
Bev <dbj...@iag.net> wrote:
>There are a few of the Co$ schools that are attended MOSTLY by
>children of Co$ members and so no effort to distance what is done
>from the Co$ is made.
This was the case at my school. While the supervisors stuck mostly to
study tech when talking about LRH stuff, any non-scientologist
students would get quite an earful the kids from Scientologist
families.
>At some of the schools e-meters are used. They go by the title
>of Learning Accelerators in them. They were NOT used at the one
>I worked at. Were they used at any of the Co$ schools you were
>at?
I'm pretty sure this was after my time. My gosh! Is a Learning
Accelerator just a Mark VI with a different label on it? Or is it
more like a different model?