|
|
By The Pilot
WHAT IS: In the old days, Ron
was basically honest with his course students. Occasionally he exaggerated or
got carried away with himself or downplayed something, but he was not busily
concocting lies or making up stories.
WHAT ISN'T: The various little biographical sketches placed in the
books were highly inaccurate and were not written by Ron. His overt was in
ignoring all the stuff that his staff was putting out. He really didn't care
what they told the public. He was annoyed at society for ignoring his big
discoveries and saw himself in competition with the heavy outpouring of false
advertisement from big business.
The "Story of Dianetics™ and Scientology™" tape that is available at
the Scientology™ website is just one example of what he would really say to his
students. Of course he shows himself in a good light, but he doesn't make
false claims about having a degree in Nuclear Physics either. Quite the
opposite.
Concerning that silly Nuclear Physics degree, someone in the Org's PR
department got the Academy of Scientology™ to issue an honorary degree in
Nuclear Physics to Ron when they put out the Radiation book. He thought it was
very funny and makes jokes about it with the students in his next lecture.
Concerning "Snake" Thompson (the unauthorized biographies claim that
he was made up by Ron), the guy really did exist and he wrote a book called
"The Navy Operations Manual on Psychoanalysis". It was used in the
Navy in WW2 and is probably the underlying source for the popular picture of
pleasant and sensible Freudian analysts in the military which we get from
shows like "MASH". It was a very good and practical book and was
reprinted as a popular paperback in the late 1950s. I think it even uses
phrases like "This is an operation manual for the human mind" and
includes techniques on regression therapy etc. I had a copy back around 1963
and it was the best book on psychoanalysis that I have ever read.
Unfortunately, it was tossed along with loads of other psych books when I
became fanatically inspired by LRH tech a few years later. If I'd known, I'd
have hung on to it.
In the book, the commander discusses studying with Freud in Vienna and then
going to various military bases in Asia to experiment with the techniques. I
think that the timing was right for Ron to bump into him while sailing back to
the US.
The org doesn't seem to be digging out this book and holding it up to prove
Ron's story. Perhaps it has a bit too much of early Dianetics™ in it. Or more
likely, he got the guy's name wrong. It has been over 30 years since I read
the book and I'm not sure but it could have been by Commander Thomas something
or other ("Snake" is obviously a nickname). The org wouldn't dare
bring it up if Ron misremembered the man's name since a Clear should have
perfect recall and since Ron was supposed to have studied with him instead of
simply talking with him a bit (and maybe getting a copy of his book) during a
long sea voyage.
WHAT IS: The unauthorized biographies of LRH are generally accurate as
to verifiable facts but are badly slanted in terms of the stories they
contain. Much of the material came from people who were very upset and pissed
off at Ron and Scientology™. They often had been abused and mistreated, but
this makes them a very biased source and there is a tendency to exaggerate,
make up things, and only tell one side of the story.
WHAT ISN'T: The SO can't really correct any of the inaccuracies or tell
the other side of any of the stories because then they would have to admit all
the bad things that really did happen.
Let's take, for example, Otto Roos' story about Ron demanding to see his own
PC folders. Its not quite right. Ron ordered that his PC folders be taken away
from Otto and carried to the Qual Sec (the Scientology™ name for the chief of
quality control in a Scientology™ organization) for her to examine rather than
looking at them himself. You might not think this is a big point but it is of
significance to church members because the inaccurate story makes Ron seem
hypocritical (PCs aren't supposed to look at their own folders).
However, Ron did indeed punch Otto and he did indeed have Rock Slam type
discreditable meter reads (he freely talks about this on earlier Briefing
Course tapes) and the org doesn't want to confirm any of that.
WHAT IS: In later times (1970s), Ron was notorious for his screaming
rages.
WHAT ISN'T: This was not purely reactive. He had it firmly under
control. There are many stories where somebody else would walk by and Ron
would break off in mid-yell to give them a soft and pleasant "Hello, how
are you" before jacking the decibels back up and resuming the attack.
I don't think this was a good way to handle people. It was based on a mistaken
idea that you handle other people's bank (meaning the reactive bank or
reactive mind) by exerting more force at them than the bank does. He would
never have said that in the early days. Force begets force and causes the
target to key-in more heavily. If force helped people, police states would be
therapeutic. This wrong idea was simply his way of justifying to himself that
he was correct in launching these tirades.
Here we see the real difference between a cleared and an uncleared individual.
Before clear, the rage would have been a stimulus response blind rage that was
out of control. After clear, it is all quite conscious and supposedly well
thought out and is actually under the individual's control. None the less, the
desire to throw that shrieking fit is not at all handled by going clear, and
the impulse is quite aberrated. In this case, I see the aberrations as coming
from the mental charge that was bypassed by making errors in researching what,
after all, is one of the most difficult subjects to figure out correctly.
WHAT IS: The first Clear to graduate the clearing course in the
mid-1960s was John MacMasters (affectionately refereed to as "John
Mac"). He had had cancer and had his stomach removed and was told that he
only had a year to live back around 1960. He responded by getting into Scientology™
and auditing and training as hard as he could and was in much
better shape and even capable of eating real food instead of gruel by the late
60s. He used to go around on world tours promoting Scientology™ and the
clearing course.
WHAT ISN'T: He didn't like the Sea Org. They mistreated him. He had
other interests. They called this "other intention-ness" and tried
to put him in lower ethics conditions. He walked out. They declared him
suppressive. He had been a known homosexual, but they could not use this
directly at that time because there were many homosexuals in Scientology™ . So
instead, they declared him for putting himself in a position where he could be
blackmailed (supposedly for being a secret homosexual even though that was an
"everybody knows" situation) because they didn't want to talk about
his real reasons for leaving. This was sometime in the early 70s.
Later he became very bitter and said nasty things about his earlier
experiences with Hubbard, but in the 1965-68 period he really loved the
subject and would do anything for Ron. The love turned to hate after too much
contact with later Sea Org craziness and that's what we hear in his later
statements. He did well for quite awhile after leaving, but eventually he
passed away. He used to talk about how he really wanted to drop his surgically
mutilated body and go find a teenager in a coma in a hospital (because the
thetan would have left) and pick right up again without all the troubles of
having to reincarnate as a baby.
WHAT IS: The CofS is currently anti-homosexual. Practicing homosexuals
are currently blocked from upper levels.
WHAT ISN'T: This was not the case until sometime in the 1980s. The only
early reference by Ron was that thetans basically don't have a sex (there
aren't male and female thetans). It was believed that people became homosexual
due to mental charge of some sort (such as a bad incident that might need to
be run out), but when this charge was removed, they tended to become bi-sexual
(no longer blocked from heterosexual relations) rather than abandoning
homosexuality.
There was even an idea circulating among staff in the 1960s that everyone
should try a homosexual experience once just to get your TRs in on it (in
other words, get your confront up on it). I know a few who tried it on this
basis, and even one girl who decided that she liked being gay better. However,
most of us (including myself) felt that just because you hadn't screwed a
gorilla, it didn't mean that you had to go and do it just to get your TRs in.
Even so, the place was liberal and safe for alternative lifestyles. The idea
of removing mental charge was that nobody would be prejudiced or much bothered
by anything as long as no one was getting hurt.
WHAT IS: The Sea Org is currently pushing a very conservative sexual
morality. SO members can be put into liability (a lower ethics condition with
amends projects etc.) for sleeping with someone outside of marriage.
WHAT ISN'T: This is again the reverse of the early attitude which was
exceedingly liberal. Basically, there were no rules until the 1965 policy
"Student's guide to acceptable behavior" and the sexual rules in
this were canceled in 1967 by the policy "New Second Dynamic Rules"
(the first dynamic is self, the second dynamic is sex/family/children, the
third dynamic is groups, etc.) which says there are no rules except that
ethics can hold you responsible if you mess up somebody's case.
Sometime in the 1970s, a Flag Order came out forbidding extra-marital sex by
SO members. This was probably issued originally for reasons of PR, but since
they are under these restrictions, they try and use this flag order on non-SO
Scientologists. The result is a confusing mixture of the Flag Order, the 1965
policy, and the 1967 policy (which was never canceled but tends to be hidden
from the membership).
Interestingly enough, when they started pushing strict sexual mores, an LRH
technical bulletin came out called "Pain and Sex". This is actually
from the 1952 tapes (see the technique 88 lectures) and is out of context.
Pain and sex were indeed bundled up together by implants and thetans have
committed many overts in the area, but Ron's advise at that time was not to
abandon sex but simply to run out the incidents.
WHAT IS: The E-meter (a sort of lie detector) is used to do security
checks on Scientologists. These "sec checks" are lists of possible
overts (crimes etc.) which are called off while watching the meter for
reactions so as to discover anything the person is withholding.
WHAT ISN'T: This wasn't designed to gain blackmailing material or to
find out what a bad guy the PC was so as to bar him from further services. It
was actually indented as a means of finding out the guy's overts and
processing them to relieve the mental charge and free him from the
overt/motivate sequence (the Scientology™ equivalent of Karma). Even in modern
times they try to clean up the charge rather than simply finding out what he's
done. On this basis, this could be considered to be a positive auditing action
meant to better the person.
I personally had an extremely big gain while being run on a sec check once.
The topic that produced the big result was implanting others. All of the
current OT levels are highly motivatorish (a motivate is what happens to you
as a result of the overts you have committed - a sort of karma). They address
what has been done to the person instead of what he has done and this was
known to be a mistake as early as 1952. A thetan could never have been
implanted in the first place unless he had intentions to implant others
sometime in the past (perhaps to make others good or keep them under control).
The smart thing to do would be to have the PC run something like "Recall
implanting another" somewhere on the OT levels. Since this is not done,
the deficiency is to some slight degree remedied by means of sec checking. But
its going the long way around. There are much better processes on grade 2 for
handling guilt and overts. Instead, they hound people endlessly with these sec
checks.
WHAT IS: In the 1960s, the sanctity of the confessional and the
confidentiality of PC folders and the idea that whatever had been run out was
therefore gone and should not be held against the person or even considered
were all pushed as being of absolute importance. In ancient times, priests
have let themselves be shot and their churches burned down rather than ever
reveal or use anything told in a confessional. In the old days, we saw this as
being more important than the survival of any Scientology™ organization because
it was a key point in the survival of the entire subject. You would let an org
collapse rather than using anything revealed in PC folders because if you did
violate this, it would become unsafe for the PCs to run out their overts and
it would permanently block the entire subject.
WHAT ISN'T: This has been grossly violated in modern Scientology™ . The
first mistake was the idea of looking over the PC folders of someone who was
being declared suppressive to see if he had made any gains (because no case
gain was a suppressive trait). This evolved into checking the folder's of
declared SPs for overts and withholds (this was considered acceptable because
of the Fair Game law). It kept getting worse. Eventually, even the registrars
(the org's salesmen) began looking through folders, supposedly with the excuse
that they were double checking that the person had gotten all the hours of
auditing they had paid for but really to get buttons to push on the person to
get them to buy their next service. If there was ever a justifiable reason for
declaring someone a suppressive, this would be it (just kidding, I really
think you should straighten people out instead of throwing them out).
WHAT IS: Sec checks are often mis-audited, mis-used, and overrun
endlessly when they are not the correct case action for the PC. There are
times when they can do somebody some good, but not when they are run
unnecessarily (especially at high prices) or audited in an accusative manner
(which seems to be popular these days), and most especially not if you then
send the person to ethics and "handle" the overts that have already
been erased (that almost guarantees that the person will start committing
overts). Because of this, the technology itself is unpopular and keeps being
renamed, being called, at various times, Hubbard Confessionals, Integrity
Processing, and the False Purpose Rundown.
WHAT ISN'T: Nowadays, they tell the PC "I'm not auditing you"
in a ridiculous attempt to keep the PC from feeling that the safety of
auditing has been violated. Maybe I'll put on a sign that says "I'm not
really driving" the next time a cop tries to pull me over for a speeding
ticket.
Sometimes something would come up that really would have to be handled in
Ethics. For example, the PC has a kilo of pot in his closet and now that we
have gotten him to swear off drugs, he's going to start selling it on the
street to pay for his auditing. In such cases, I would hand carry the PC
folder over to the Ethics officer myself and give him a lecture about
maintaining the safety of auditing. The PC must not be made wrong or told to
make amends. He should just be talked to in a reasonable way and coaxed into
doing the right thing. You would expect a good ethics officer to know this,
but often they did not have enough auditor training.
WHAT IS: Scientology™ administrative staff are not trained in the
technology of Scientology™ . They are trained in organizational policy instead.
An early 70s Policy letter started this. Sometimes you do get someone who has
trained on both sides of the fence, but its contrary to the normal way things
are done.
WHAT ISN'T: Most Scientology™ staff (only a small percentage work as
auditors) have no real idea what Scientology™ IS except for some shallow
beginner's level stuff and promotional BS. They are working on some sort of a
vague purpose to save the world without having much of a clue as to what it is
all about.
In the old days, an organization would often boom when they made all their
staff train as auditors. Of course you can't just take an auditor who knows
nothing else and put him on a management post without any training in his job.
But knowing the technology of the mind is what Scientology™ is all about. As
far as I'm concerned, a Scientology™ executive who has not also trained as an
auditor isn't really a Scientologist (in the fullest sense), doesn't have any
idea what he is doing, and tends to screw things up. On a new staff member,
the lack of training in the subject is understandable, it takes time to learn
things. But if he isn't studying the technology like mad, then what is doing
there? The only answers are religious fanaticism (big Ron in the sky will
solve all the guys problems for him?) or he's hoping to gain money or power or
something.
WHAT IS: The org's registrars are really big league salesmen with worse
behavior than the most extreme of the used car salespeople. They push buttons
endlessly, hound people and threaten them with ethics, make false promises and
try to get people to mortgage their lives away to raise the money to pay the
orgs high prices. There are exceptions, especially when you get far away from
the Flag organization (the closer they are to "Source", the worse
they get), but they live on big commissions so that ethical behavior is
invalidated and out-ethics is praised.
WHAT ISN'T: It doesn't have to be this way. At one time there was a
policy that "Only Accounts Talks Money" and the regs were forbidden
to discuss it. Also, they did not receive any sales commissions. This kept
them a bit more honest. The better ones stuck to their real job which was to
explain what services where available and encourage people to do them.
By the way, standard org finance policy is to never borrow money but always
pay cash (except that you may have to borrow money to promote with to get a
business out of emergency, but you don't borrow for anything else). This is a
good policy. Its an overt to talk people into doing the opposite.
WHAT IS: To complete a service at the org, you must write a success
story. If you refuse or write one that is negative, the standard action is to
handle you, either in review or ethics, to fix what is wrong. There are cases
where this fix up does indeed correct something that was done wrong and which
was contrary to standard tech. However, there are cases where the thing done
wrong was correct per standard tech and is therefore unremediable, and cases
where the course or auditing action was either unnecessary or not of great
interest to the person. In these situations, a bad success story launches one
into endless unnecessary or upsetting repair or ethics actions. So you always
find something nice to say and write a PR success story unless you know that
you're on firm ground in complaining that the auditor or supervisor has
violated standard tech.
WHAT ISN'T: There is no way to evaluate the quality of service being
delivered or even to determine if an action is positive or detrimental based
on these enforced success stories. You'll get glowing success stories even on
backwards or unnecessary actions unless the person is so upset that he doesn't
give a damn anymore. There are real success stories, both unsolicited ones and
ones that are written on completing something which really did have a magical
effect on the person. But there is no way to separate out the wheat from the
chaff.
It would not be a bad idea to have people rate the quality and effectiveness
of the services delivered, like they do at some restaurants. Perhaps this
should be done by checking boxes on a slip handed to you by the success
officer and then placed into an anonymous voting box. Maybe the success
officer should ask the person if he was happy with the service or wants
something handled without pushing at him or insisting on anything. And then
maybe he should ask the person if he feels like writing a success story, and
should also have a big sign posted behind him saying that people are never
required to write success stories.
With this, the success stories you got might really mean something. And if the
voting slips were compiled on a weekly basis and the averages were computed,
you would have a real gauge of what the public thought of your services.
WHAT IS: Per Scientology™ Policy, managers must manage exclusively by
statistics. If the course room ceiling has caved in and the students are
bleeding on the floor, the solution is to have them stay late so that the Scientology™
Academy will meet its quota of student points and course
completions. Well, perhaps I am exaggerating. Most instructors would indeed
put aside their fixed ideas and work like mad to care for their students in an
emergency. But the stats would indeed go down and somewhere in upper
management, there would be an executive who would refuse to be reasonable
about any justification for downstats (as per policy) and some heads would
roll.
WHAT ISN'T: Management by statistics alone is basically insane. It is a
fixed idea that interferes with looking at what you are really doing. Its not
that you shouldn't watch the stats, every successful corporation knows that
you must keep graphs of production, encourage the uptrends, and remedy the
downtrends. You can really make an organization fly by finding out what
changed just before a radical shift in a graph. But it is only one of many
indicators that monitor the performance of an organization and predict its
long range expectations. Things such as employee moral, customer satisfaction,
the potential depletion of non-renewable resources, and improving the product
are all highly important.
As a staff member, every problem you can't solve or situation that you can't
confront is handled by getting the stats (statistics) up with the idea that
this will lead to the expansion of Scientology™ which in turn will result in
the eventual solution of all problems and social ills. This is then used to
justify committing overts on public and other staff members and that leads to
the idea becoming fixed because they would have to face the overts if they let
go of it.
The biggest mistake is to force the stats up when they start to collapse
because this hides the real reason the stats are collapsing and eventually
makes it impossible to spot what was messed up. For example, when the insane
idea of harassing the student for MUs (Misunderstood words) every time he
moved an inch while studying in the course room was put in, the academy stats
collapsed. If they had been able to confront a down stat and tried to find out
what had changed, they could have spotted this error right away and fixed it.
Instead, supervisors got the stats back up by making the remaining students
stay late etc. Of course the stat went into a slow downward collapse anyway so
it didn't even work in the long term. A cute side note is that Ron used to tap
his foot while studying, so in the Flag course rooms, this was known as the
one body motion you could do without the supervisor hounding you to death.
WHAT IS: The supervisor isn't supposed to evaluate, interpret, or
explain the course materials to the student. This is a reasonable idea. The
student should find out for himself.
WHAT ISN'T: Per current policy, the supervisor does not need to be
trained on the materials he's supervising. He often has no idea what the
students are learning. If the student needs help, all the supervisor can do is
robotically ask for MUs, often on words he himself does not know the meaning
of. This is pure idiocy.
In the old days, we had instructors who knew their materials backwards and
forwards and who cared about the students. The rules kept them from spouting
off and overwhelming the student with too much evaluation but they weren't
taken absolutely and the supervisor could help a lot, finding other
references, giving examples from his experience, explaining lightly about
things that weren't on the students course etc. If the student is studying,
for example, level I (problems processing), the instructor should not be
telling him the theory of the level or how to run the processes. It's in the
students materials and he really should study it for himself. But the problems
material also mentions GPMs (Goals Problem Masses) and that's not on the
students level and he's not going to be auditing it without much more study,
but he may need a few words of explanation and a pat on the back to get him
going again on the materials that do pertain to his level.
WHAT IS: Current Scientology™ study technology tends to specialize in
handling MUs and doing demonstrations of things in clay. These are useful
techniques. Sometimes its enough, especially for adults who already have a
great deal of knowledge and are doing a course with a great deal of
enthusiasm.
WHAT ISN'T: This is totally inadequate for use in schools. The 1950s
view was much broader and actually highlights how bad the current approach is.
The basic Scientology™ idea on the whole topic is that understanding comes from
affinity, reality, and communication (ARC). They still know this, but they
have forgotten how to apply it. First and foremost, you need to get the
students to like a subject. An interested student will learn the subject
despite a bad teacher. You need to promote free and open communication about
the subject, especially between the students (currently discouraged in the
CofS). You need to see and examine things and try things out to build reality.
You need to look through the materials multiple times rather than just working
forward through a checksheet robotically. As a substitute for experience, you
need to sit and imagine what you're going to do and how you're going to handle
anything that could go wrong. And you need to decide that you invented the
subject to make it your own and get it fully into your own universe (yes Ron
actually tells students to do this on a 1954 tape).
WHAT IS: Training people with force makes robots who can't think with
the data they have learned. This was well known in the 1950s. Pounding the
data into the students head is totally contrary to all Scientology™ basics. But
the original Class VIII auditor's course was taught by tossing the students
off the side of the ship whenever they flubbed. "The auditor is trying to
kill the PC, OVERBOARD 3 TIMES" was a common CS (Case Supervisor
Instructions after reviewing a session done by the auditor).
WHAT ISN'T: The impact of these overwhelmed and unthinking CLASS VIIIs
pretty much destroyed the subject within a few months. The entire backbone of
trained auditors and old timers in the subject was destroyed. One org had
about 50 trained auditors on staff (both shifts, including trained auditors
who were doing other posts) just before they arrived (fall 1968) and only had
a handful by mid-1969.
These original Class VIIIs, by the way, were not evil people. They all had
intentions to help and to save the world. They had simply been turned,
temporarily, into dramatizing psychotics. Most of them regretted it later.
Some of them are busily sacrificing themselves for the sake of Scientology™
in
a misguided effort to make amends (Artie Maren for example). Others started
running freezone splinter groups. Many of them don't audit anymore.
WHAT IS: Standard Tech (everybody doing the same thing the same way
without variation) was introduced by the Class VIII course. It is continually
promoted as the ultimate in technical perfection.
WHAT ISN'T: Standard Technology does not mean the same thing as either
correct technology or high quality technology. What standard tech really meant
was that the same error was repeated consistently on everybody. This does have
benefits for research since it makes it easier to see what is wrong with the
tech. Unfortunately, this research gain is mostly wasted if you have a fixed
idea about the tech already being perfect.
The introduction of standard tech caused a total collapse of Scientology™
in
1969. Luckily, it did make many of the basic errors visible so that
eventually, when the screw-ups could no longer be ignored (late 1970), the
worst faults were corrected and the subject rebounded.
They should have put standard tech in carefully and watched it with an eagle
eye. If we hadn't had the fanaticism and the insistence on being right and the
training by force, we could have spotted the errors in the tech within a few
months and retained our backbone of sane and experienced auditors and
executives. Instead, the subject fell into the hands (by and large) of
fanatics and incompetents.
Even as the theory of auditing was getting straightened out and improving in
the early 70s, the skill level of auditors was crashing because of the
disappearance of the old timers, the gross mistakes on how to run a course,
and the heavy threats and invalidation which were being brought to bear on
students and auditors. The TRs and metering skills of an old Class IV cannot
be found short of Class XII (if at all) in modern Scientology™ .
I remember doing the "dating drill" one time in the late 70s. This
drill has nothing to do with picking up girls. It consists of the coach
writing a complex date on a slip of paper and hiding it and then you try and
find the precise date through e-meter reactions alone. I tossed the coach in
the chair and pretty much read the date straight off of her with total
accuracy in less than a minute. The sea org instructor didn't like this. I
looked at the PC instead of the meter. I pleasantly asked questions instead of
barking at the PC. I looked at her with a friendly and confident manner
instead of drilling her with a death stare. These were all grievous faults. It
took weeks for my skills to recover after having one of those incompetents on
my back for five minutes.
Check our Content Page
Copyright 1996 by Pilot
All commercial rights are reserved to the author, who currently wishes to
remain anonymous and therefore is writing under the pen name of "The
Pilot". Individuals may freely copy these files on the internet for their
own use and they may be made available on any web server who does not charge
for them and who does not alter their contents.
|
Check our Content Page
The various little biographical
sketches placed in the books were highly inaccurate and were not written
by Ron.
The "Story of Dianetics and Scientology™
" tape that is available at the Scientology™ website is
just one example of what he would really say to his students.
Concerning "Snake" Thompson,
the guy really did exist and he wrote a book called "The Navy
Operations Manual on Psychoanalysis".
The unauthorized biographies of
LRH are generally accurate as to verifiable facts but are badly slanted
in terms of the stories they contain.
Otto Roos' story about Ron demanding
to see his own PC folders. Its not quite right...
In the 70'ies Ron was notorious for
his screaming rages.
This was not purely reactive. He had
it firmly under control.
The first Clear to graduate the
clearing course in 1966 was John MacMasters
He didn't like the Sea Org. They
mistreated him.
Later he became very bitter and said
nasty things about his earlier experiences with Hubbard
Even so, the place was liberal
and safe for alternative lifestyles.
The Sea Org is currently pushing a
very conservative sexual morality.
Sec Checks wasn't designed to
gain blackmailing material or to find out what a bad guy the PC.
It was actually indented as a means of finding out the guy's overts and
processing them to relieve the mental charge
In the 1960s, confidentiality of PC
folders and the idea that whatever had been run out was gone, was
of absolute importance.
This has been grossly violated in
modern Scientology™ .
Sec checks are often mis-audited, mis-used
Most Scientology™ staff (only a
small percentage work as auditors) have no real idea what Scientology™
IS
except for some shallow beginner's level
As far as I'm concerned, a Scientology™
executive who has not also trained as an auditor isn't really a full
Scientologist
The Org's registrars are really big
league salesmen with worse behavior than the most extreme of the used
car salespeople
To complete a service, you must write
a success story. If you refuse or write one that is negative, the
standard action is to handle you, either in review or ethics
It would not be a bad idea to have
people rate the quality and effectiveness of the services delivered,
like they do at some restaurants.
Per Scientology™ Policy, managers must
manage exclusively by statistics.
Management by statistics alone
is basically insane
But it is only one of many
indicators that monitor the performance of an organization
The biggest mistake is to force
the stats up when they start to collapse because this hides the real
reason the stats are collapsing
If the student needs help, all the
supervisor can do is robotically ask for Misunderstood Words. This is
pure idiocy.
In the old days, we had instructors
who knew their materials backwards and forwards and who cared about the
students.
Understanding comes from
affinity, reality, and communication (ARC). They still know this, but
they have forgotten how to apply it. First and foremost, you need to get
the students to like a subject.
Training people with force makes
robots who can't think with the data
These original Class VIIIs had
simply been turned, temporarily, into dramatizing psychotics.
What standard tech really
"meant" was that the same error was repeated consistently on
everybody.
The introduction of standard tech
caused a total collapse of Scientology™ in 1969
It took weeks for my skills to recover
after having one of those incompetents on my back for five minutes.
|
