Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

The Evaluation

13 views
Skip to first unread message

Peter Graham

unread,
Feb 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/13/00
to
Ralph

I was at Saint Hill from early September 1964 to July 66 and am familiar with
the Data Series of policy letters and did most of the Data Series Evaluator's
Course in 1974.

Several others have suggested that the change started in mid 1964 when Hubbard
moved from researching a being's "own GPMs" to "implanted GPMs". Prior to that
he had said that a person's own GPMs were about 1000 times more charged than
implant GPMs. It was indeed an odd thing for him to do. I did not personally
observe any other change in LRH, his personality or the way he ran his orgs
until early in 1965.

>From my observations, the change in Hubbard directly followed the publication of
the results of the Melbourne Inquiry into Scn around that time. They were quoted
in the press around the world. The findings were damning in the extreme. The
opening paragraph said (paraphrased) that "Scn was an evil racket with no
redeeming features whatsoever". It went on and on with nothing positive to say
despite the fact that about 60 people had testified as to how it had benefited
them.

That upset Hubbard BIG TIME and he became noticeably hardened thereafter. It was
his evaluation that the whole inquiry mess had come about because of two
particular men, both of whom had been on the Melbourne org's lines for some
years, one who assisted the enquiry, and who testified against scn and Hubbard.
In his view, they should have been kicked off the orgs lines much earlier as
they had repeatedly been troublesome, made no gains, etc. etc.

He also realized (right or wrong) that all the main troubles orgs had
experienced (bad press, legal problems, etc.) from Day One had come from such
people or from people connected to such people. His primary solution was to put
in place a mechanism to detect and declare such people to be "Suppressive
Persons" and those connected with them to be "Potential Trouble Sources" and to
get them off org's lines.

The first "strange" behaviour that I noticed (inconsistent with his earlier
material on scn and how to study it) was when he wrote "Keeping Scn Working" (7
Feb 1965). Soon thereafter (7 March), he introduced the so-called "Justice"
system, later renamed (misnamed) as the "Ethics" system (22 April 65). The 7th
of March 65 also saw the introduction of declaring people to be "SP" or "PTS"
along with the infamous practice of "disconnection". As I see it, these mark the
beginnings of the protective/defective shell which later led to an organization
that many today regard as a cult. In 1966, the "Guardian's Office" was formed
(with its Legal, PR and Intelligence units to handle "the enemy") and in 1967,
the "Sea Org" was started with its military/naval structure and behaviours. Also
in 1967, he clarified that the purpose of "ethics" was to remove
"counter-intentions" and "other-intentionedness" thus further confusing what
ethics is.

It is my conclusion that the basic "why" was that he responded badly to the
attacks on Scn and himself (specifically, the 1963 raids on his churches in the
USA by the FDA and the damaging Melbourne Inquiry) and went into a massive GAMES
CONDITION. He seemed to completely forget the data on games conditions and their
consequences. Simply put, the game was on and he was at war. The rules of war
are different and sometimes "the end may be seen to justify the means". Having
set himself and his followers on this course, he just kept going in that general
direction. "Policy" and "Tech" later became the dominant chants in his orgs and
the basic Philosophy of the subject (which is actually senior to both tech and
policy) tended to be de-emphasized.

The "Data Series" articles do have some useful material in them (especially the
first half dozen) and they are well worth a look. After all, the subject of
evaluation is extremely important. However, there are some major outpoints in
the "Data Series" approach to problem solving.

Early on in this series of articles, the idea of an "evaluation" concerned
evaluating data i.e. establishing it's value by determining it's validity, etc.
Later on in the series, the word "evaluation" came to be used to described a
problem solving procedure, where someone identifies a "situation", collects
"data" on it which leads to a "why" for the problem and opens the door to a
"solution".

He tried to make it into a sort of tech, a procedural process, but it did not
work well at all when used by people with thinking problems, strong biases,
fixed ideas, poor critical thinking skills, etc. And it was not easy to come up
with a "why" that did not agree with the prevailing "group think" or where it
would be politically unacceptable.

The biggest outpoint in the Data Series and the "evaluation" (problem solving)
method presented was that there was no reference to the basic philosophy of the
subject when doing an "evaluation". Policy was the senior referential point
(stable data) in doing an "evaluation". The relationship between technology,
policy and philosophy was not included in the Data Series. Sure, it talks about
"ideal scenes" but these are not the same as using the basic philosophy of the
subject (the basic principles, values and ideals of scn) to guide you in the way
you do an evaluation and the way you interpret and apply policy and technology
and the way you handle/solve each situation. In other words, there was no place
in an "evaluation" for the relevant philosophical data to be identified and
included in the evaluation.

So, yes, I agree with you, there can be "outpoints in the material being
studied".

And, Study Barrier 5: An inability to competently evaluate data.

There is a Study Tape on this topic but it does not go into it very deeply and
does not cover the evaluation process or how to evaluate in any depth.

In The Logics, it says that "A datum is as valuable as it has been evaluated".
It should read "A datum is only as valuable as it has been competently
evaluated". Unfortunately, the Data Series evaluator's course does not greatly
enhance that particular skill and does not adequately teach how to go about
evaluating data.

Best regards

Peter Graham

On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Ralph Hilton wrote:

> I've been going through the Data Series again amidst other things.
>
> It seems that there is an unstated Barrier to Study which Hubbard refused to
> acknowledge:
>
> Study Barrier 4:
>
> There are outpoints in the material being studied.
>
> Outpoints abound in the materials - falsehoods such as a Clear having
> perfect recall, contrary data such as different definitions of Clear.
>
> In studying Scientology students and peruaded to invalidate their own
> ability to perceive outpoints. A person's intelligence is directly related
> to their ability to spot outpoints.
>
> Thus in relation to Scientology students become less intelligent if they
> compromise with their own perceptions. They become more and more dependent
> on the organizations to evaluate reality for them as they invalidate their
> own perceptions more and more.
>
> Reasonableness is the justification by the analytical mind of the actions of
> the reactive mind. (per DMSMH)
>
> The Data Series Evaluators Course is one of the most expensive courses in
> Scientology. Its very heavy on practical with a set of issues on the drills
> about an inch thick.
>
> The Data Series is, in my opinion, an essential area of study for
> Scientologists. It is necessary having studied it to restudy it looking for
> the outpoints in it.
>
> It teaches a method of thought and study that is in direct contrast to the
> "Golden Age" of tech and the evaluative "Find your misunderstood!" of the
> robotic course supervisor.
>
> Scientology seemed to have gone insane around 64/65. A few people who were
> there then have commented on it.
>
> It follows that there is a major piece of out tech introduced at that time.
>
> The major activities - R6 - C.C. and the shifting of importance from Actual
> Goals, study tech, SPs, power processing, ethics conditions.
>
> Its quite a mish-mash.
>
> The most horrible outpoint of the time seems at the moment to be the
> definition of an SP. Hubbard earlier talked about the "Merchants of Chaos"
> but in a manner as if they could be easily handled. He lost his confidence
> somewhere in there. His opinion of his fellows dropped as evidenced in KSW.
> There might have been a lot of out tech in the area of Power Processing.
>
> How about anyone who was around at the time or has studied the tech of the
> time coming up with their own list of outpoints.
>
> It should be possible to evaluate this thing with the amount of data we have
> available.
>
> --
>
> Ralph Hilton
> http://Ralph.Hilton.org
> Freezone International: http://www.fzint.org


Ted Crammer

unread,
Feb 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/13/00
to
In article <38A69339...@iinet.net.au>, Peter Graham
<pgr...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

>He also realized (right or wrong) that all the main troubles orgs had
>experienced (bad press, legal problems, etc.) from Day One had come
>from such people or from people connected to such people. His primary
>solution was to put in place a mechanism to detect and declare such
>people to be "Suppressive Persons" and those connected with them to be
>"Potential Trouble Sources" and to get them off org's lines.

He already had what I believe is the correct policy on addressing such
persons (NCG): Politely tell them that you are not going to be able to
help them and give them their money back. This unburdens the
organization and opens the door to more customers many of whom will be
easier cases to address.


[Informed comments on Data Series snipped.]


Thanks, Peter

--
Ted

Ted Crammer

unread,
Feb 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/13/00
to
In article <38a70...@news2.lightlink.com>,
cbwi...@adore.lightlink.com (CB Willis) wrote:

>How about it should read:
>"A datum is only as valuable as it is true, useful, and has been
>completely understood and fairly evaluated."


Good!

In order to reach more possible tone levels drop "true."

A datum or item doesn't have to be true in order to be useful.

--
Ted

Peter Graham

unread,
Feb 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/14/00
to
Ted

That policy has its place, but I am sure you will agree that you have to be
right about it. The problem was it was misused and abused at times and some
people (way too many) were declared to be SP or PTS when they weren't. The
practice of disconnection has caused massive (but totally unnecessary)
problems for the CofS (and still does).

The misuse of disconnection was sometimes used to replace traditional
(before 1965) scn handlings of taking responsibility, confronting things,
not being a victim and using communication (the universal solvent) to solve
problems. Misuse of disconnection is a great way to make enemies (rather
than friends).

Regards

Peter

Peter Graham

unread,
Feb 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/14/00
to
CBW and Ted

I think that the word "evaluation" already embraces the concepts mentioned.
My best definition so far is as follows:

Definition: Evaluation is the process of determining or estimating the
value of an idea or datum by attempting to ascertain its meaning(s),
context(s), validity, usefulness and importance."

It is an enormously important subject which I think we all agree.

Regards

Peter

On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 15:42:19, CB Willis wrote:

> [revised post:]


>
> Peter Graham (pgr...@iinet.net.au) wrote:
> >In The Logics, it says that "A datum is as valuable as it has been
> evaluated".
> >It should read "A datum is only as valuable as it has been competently
> >evaluated".
>

> How about it should read:
> "A datum is only as valuable as it is true, useful, and has been

> well understood and fairly evaluated."
>
> - CBW
>
>


0 new messages