Understanding Scientology - The Light Of Reason

The greatest protection cults like Scientology enjoy is the profound confusion and lack of clear and true information about them most people have. What cults are and in particular what it's like to be in a cult are not well described for most people.

 The experience is rarely well understood by people who have never joined cults. Most people simply don't get enough information or interactions with cult members or ex members.

Now in fairness folks like Margaret Singer, Robert Jay Lifton, Rick Ross and several others who never join cults really gain a deep understanding and great education about cults through years of in depth study and analysis.

There also are people like the folks at the Underground Bunker who put in the work of coming back and reading the stories over and over. They put in the time to look at comments and stories by exes like Jon Atack and Chris Shelton and Derek Bloch and many others and see these people are intelligent, sincere and sane.

So the experience of seeing that helps to knock around assumptions and false ideas about cult members.

Then talking to each other in the comments section helps to bring out those ideas to have them described and examined in depth. That's why the Bunkeroos really understand Scientology far better than most other people. Even sometimes better than exes who never get education on it except from Scientology itself.

After a while it's clear many Indies know less about many aspects of Scientology in its history and actual effects than Bunkeroos who just put in the work of reading the stories here and actually thinking about them.

Now, that will earn me some attacks but I still believe it's true.

Hubbard took particular care to ensure his doctrine would never be discussed or interpreted at length. He wrote several policy letters and bulletins that forbid this. Scientology objects to anyone displaying them without permission, but someone was kind enough to already write a summary with the important facts presented:

 I'm quoting this from Prof Dave Touretzky's website:

Quote:

HCO Bulletin 15 February 1979, Reissued 12 April 1983, is titled Verbal Tech: Penalties. The bulletin is item 24 in the Keeping Scientology Working series, and appears in the 1983 version of the Hubbard Professional TRs Course booklet and many other Scientology volumes. It is very short: just 3 paragraphs, totalling 76 words. A verbatim copy was formerly presented here under the "fair use'' provision of the US Copyright Code,, but after Scientology attorney Helena K. Kobrin complained, I replaced it with the following summary:

* The first paragraph simply says that anyone found to be using "verbal tech'' will be brought before a court of ethics.

* The second paragraph gives the actual definition of verbal tech. It lists the following activities:
1. "giving out data'' that doesn't agree with official policy as stated in HCOBs (Hubbard Communications Office Bulletins) and HCOPLs (Hubbard Communications Offfice Policy Letters)
2. obstructing the use or application of HCOBs and HCOPLs
3. "corrupting their intent''
4. "altering their content in any way'' (fixing typos? correcting fracured grammar?)
5. "interpreting them verbally for another [person]'',
6. or pretending to quote from a bulletin or policy letter without showing the actual text.

Item #5 makes it a crime to interpret Hubbard's writings for another person. That's the real meaning of "verbal tech''. The critical point here is that it's been cleverly slipped in among a set of much more clearly objectionable acts, so that the reader is not given a chance to notice what's really going on.

* The third paragraph says that any of the above actions will be punished. That's it.

What's the real motive behind this HCOB? By preventing people from discussing their interpretations of his policies, Hubbard has effectively squelched all internal debate on the way his organization is run. If one disagrees with a policy, public discussion and analysis are not an option. The only acceptable action is to "go back and find your misunderstood word'' (a Scientology catch-phrase), repeating as often as necessary until the disagreement has been suppressed.

Note that according to Hubbard's policy, this very web page is an instance of "verbal tech'', since I am interpreting the bulletin, and quoting from it without showing the actual text. Well, I tried to show the text, but a Scientology lawyer complained about it. Twice! End quote

Jon Atack used this quote from John Stuart Mill to describe how to take on the complex and intentionally unclear ideas in Scientology.

“There must be discussion to show how experience is to be interpreted. Wrong opinions and practices gradually yield to fact and argument; but facts and arguments, to produce any effect on the mind, must be brought before it. Very few facts are able to tell their own story, without comments to bring out their meaning. The whole strength and value, then, of human judgment depending on the one property, that it can be set right when it is wrong, reliance can be placed on it only when the means of setting it right are kept constantly at hand. In the case of any person whose judgement is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so? Because he has kept his mind open to criticism of his opinions and conduct.”John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, published in 1859



"If a doctrine is not unintelligible, it has to be vague; and if neither unintelligible nor vague, it has to be unverifiable.” 
― Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements

Margaret Singer as a top cult expert and in her book Cults In Our Midst she described cults and Scientology in particular quite well:

First a quote that struck me instantly. It reminded me of an analysis of Scientology written by a class XII auditor. She said Hubbard's writings can seem contradictory and paradoxical. That is actually intentional.

The more complicated and filled with contradictions the new system is and the more difficult it is to learn, the more effective the conversion process will be.      ( page 67 )

You affirm that you accept and understand the ideology by beginning to talk in the simple catchphrases particular to the group. This "communication" has no foundation since, in reality, you have little understanding of the system beyond the catchphrases. ( page 69)

Loading the language. As members continue to formulate their ideas in the group's jargon, this language serves the purpose of constricting members' thinking and shutting down critical thinking abilities. At first, translating from their native tongue into "groupspeak" forces members to censor, edit, and slow down spontaneous bursts of criticism or oppositional ideas. ( page 70)

One international group, for example, has dictionaries for members to use. In one of these dictionaries, criticism is defined as "justification for having done an overt." Then one looks up overt and the dictionary states: "overt act: an overt act is not just injuring someone or something; an overt act is an act of omission or commission which does the least good for the least number of dynamics or the most harm to the greatest number of dynamics." Then the definition of dynamics says: There could be said to be eight urges in life...." And so, one can search from term to term trying to learn this new language. (page 70 )

Peer pressure is very important to this process:

If you say it in front of others, you'll do it.
Once you do it, you'll think it.
Once you think it (in an environment you do not perceive to be coercive ), you'll believe that you thought it yourself. ( page 76 )

This is key to Scientology. Hubbard set it up so the new cult member practices in drills, including patter drills, then does many of the desired actions of a cult member. Hundreds of drills in fact practiced for hundreds or thousands of hours. Then the cult member feels Hubbard's ideas are their own and defends them as irrefutable deeply held personal convictions.

By having the ideas in Scientology never examined or verified by members they remain hazy. This is greatly compounded by the ideas being full of contradictions and endless word salad of words defined by piles and piles of related new terms. They function as the web of lies with the term engram related to the reactive mind and both linked to charge and secondaries and incidents and auditing and the tone scale and each tone level and on and on it goes. Most Scientology terms link to hundreds or thousands of other Scientology terms to fully define them. It's an entire language of unproven yet extreme claims.

And the Orwellian use of two practices makes Scientology particularly difficult to understand. Hubbard changed verbs to nouns often like beingness, doingness, and havingness. It makes the ideas he described with these terms confusing, unfamiliar and hazy. It took the familiar and changed it enough to make it unsettling.

Orwell described this in his description of how Newspeak is created in the appendix to 1984. Hubbard paid close attention. 

Hubbard also uses one hundred eighty degree reversals. He called things their exact opposites. It's a fundamental to double speak.

 Calling adding hypnotic content auditing and defining that as removing hypnotic content, calling removing a fake identity clearing while it actually adds a fake hypnotic cult identity, calling a poisoning program the purification rundown, calling a program to install hypnotic directions the False Purpose Rundown which actually knocks out a person's own beliefs and decisions to replace them with Hubbard's purposes - which are certainly false for the victim who receives them, calling a route to physical and mental slavery the bridge to total freedom and saying it delivers spiritual freedom is a complete opposite. 

Getting someone to think in and speak an opposite term for something makes seeing the contradiction within the use of the term versus the definition extremely difficult.

It's used frequently by politicians. Almost every time a law has the term freedom it actually restricts or removes freedom for someone. Or everyone. 

But by looking at these ideas, describing them and discussing them they can become clearer and be doubted, accepted or rejected. 

Scientology Mythbusting - Revelations

 


 

 I was in Scientology for twenty five years and about two and a half years ago I saw the infamous Posse of Lunatics Freedom mag story and was alarmed. I ended up reading the Underground Bunker and with much confusion, anxiety and concern focused on the Scientology Mythbusting series by Jon Atack and read Never Believe a Hypnotist and articles on hypnosis at Lermanet.com and realized that Scientology is entirely a fraud.

So, I always have a special appreciation and gratitude for Jon Atack's articles and the Underground Bunker for putting them out. When I first looked outside Scientology tentatively and timidly I wasn't prepared for the cold harsh truth.

But Jon presented little bits and pieces of the puzzle, sometimes describing an aspect of hypnosis like the fact that formal hypnosis isn't the only kind possible or that the main methods of it are confusion (aka contradictions or paradox), repetition, attention fixation (or division or overwhelm), mimicry, or vivid imagery.

That gave me pause to reflect on the fact that Scientology has many contradictions in it and a class XII auditor once in an interview stated Hubbard's writings can SEEM paradoxical and contradictory. I reflected on being taken aback when I first joined Scientology by looking through the Tech Dictionary for definitions to Scientology terms and finding many had multiple definitions that completely contradicted each other for the same word.

I realized Hubbard has plenty of contradictions in his doctrine. He said to not tell harmful lies in the Way To Happiness but in policy said if promotion is higher than delivery we always raise delivery and never lower promotion.

So, if we can't make clears rather than admit it, we keep saying we can make clears and try to somehow make it true. That should have clued me in about Hubbard's approach to life. It's okay to lie your ass off, if you wish you were capable of doing great things.

I also easily saw repetition is used almost constantly in Scientology. It's in the courses, drills, study procedures, auditing and language Scientologists communicate in and think. As Scientologists we studied the same references like KSW and study tech materials on how to study, the barriers to study and word clearing hundreds of times. We practiced TRs for hundreds of hours.

I could go on but the point is easy for any Scientologist to recall. There's a lot of repetition in Scientology. And attention is fixed in drills and auditing. It's also divided as a student has about a dozen barriers to study phenomena to look for constantly, then to pick between three barriers to guide which procedures to use, and a constant gnawing anxiety about being able to instantly answer a spot check for the definition of any word on a course, to avoid the dreaded flunk that results in being sent back to clear the word then restudy from where the word first appeared, even if it was five hundred pages earlier.

Mimicry appears in the TRs, the language and behavior of Scientologists too as they try to fit in. And vivid images are created in auditing by the imagination of the person being audited, along with Hubbard's outlandish descriptions in his writings and tapes on his adventures and whole track space opera.

I read everything on Scientology by Jon Atack I could find. Never Believe a Hypnotist was truly profound for me as it lays Hubbard's statements on hypnosis next to each other. It made several things clear: Hubbard contradicted himself on hypnosis dozens and dozens of times. He also showed that he knew a tremendous amount of information on hypnosis, despite claiming it isn't what Dianetics and Scientology are. But in another quote said you are laying in suggestions whether you try to or not.

I particularly like Jon Atack's statement today: "Over 20 years ago, I analyzed Hubbard’s own statements in Never Believe a Hypnotist; Hubbard leaves no doubt that his processes are hypnotic in effect. Indeed, Scientology is nothing more than a series of hypnotic procedures that cause euphoria and heighten the willingness to believe."

It took a lot of hard looking for me to see that. When you are a Scientologist you usually solve the contradictions in Hubbard's doctrine on hypnosis by being confused to the point of hopelessness on hypnosis, and dismiss it as "not something we use in Dianetics and Scientology."

That's something many Scientologists and exes NEVER overcome. Or they see hypnosis as only being in some places but not others and won't dare look at drills or study technology indoctrination to see if hypnosis could be there.

Frankly learning about hypnosis is avoided in general in society but in particular for Scientologists and exes.

There's a wealth of information, including many specific quotes by Hubbard himself to support the claim the processes in auditing and methods in indoctrination both are based on hypnotic techniques.

In exchanges with independent Scientologists they often try to sidestep the hundreds of quotes by Hubbard and say "intention in auditing and study technology isn't to hypnotize, and as intention is cause, you can't hypnotize anyone unless you intend to."

It's a kind of magical thinking. It's like saying if I shoot a person but don't intend to harm them my intention will prohibit the bullet from injuring anyone.

Hypnosis existed long before the term did and worked on people whether a hypnotist intended to help or harm the person. I think intention isn't cause.

An act causes an effect whether anyone intended it or not. I understand for Scientologists the possibility that all the euphoria they experience in auditing and on course being due to manipulation of their own imagination and mind with no miraculous technology present can be frankly shattering. It's worse the more you have invested in Scientology and the more you have reshaped your life and mind with Scientology.

So, the thought of Scientology and Hubbard being frauds is more terrifying than death. It's a loss of meaning, identity, values, status and the future you thought Scientology provided.

Scientology Study Technology - 1 Hubbard's Words

 


 







Ron Hubbard constructed the version of cult indoctrination methods he used from a variety of sources. I know he has been reported as taking it wholecloth from a pair of Scientologists who were teachers. That's one anecdote and it doesn't do several things.

It doesn't prove its own truthfulness. It might be entirely false. It also, even if true, doesn't demonstrate what form study technology was in before Hubbard got it or if he altered it and if he did alter it to what extent and why. It also doesn't explain what it actually does. Just calling it study tech doesn't provide a detailed critical analysis of what it actually is and how it affects minds.

That's worth examining if you want to understand Scientology, and not just Hubbard's claims and names for his creations. He may have lied or been wrong, difficult as that may be to accept.

In this series I intend to revisit Scientology Study Technology and several quotes from Hubbard that may together put it in perspective.

I also may reference other sources or authors if their ideas are relevant. I wrote about this two years ago in Insidious Enslavement: Study Technology and a number of other blog posts.

That's still important and I will quote it but recommend anyone who hasn't read that to read it as it covers a lot of ground.

Hubbard said a lot about study in many different places in Dianetics and Scientology.

Here's a series of quotes where Hubbard shows the physical and mental reactions he labels as corresponding to the barriers to study. I think looking at what he has a student DO and exactly what the phenomena he uses as triggers for responses is key. Just because Hubbard claimed the barriers existed doesn't mean they actually did.

He got students to follow a pattern of behavior with an explanation for the behavior. The behavior should be examined in detail and the explanation Hubbard gave looked at separately.

Hubbard's instructions used real experiences as prompts, so the question is what are those experiences ?

Here's a series of quotes from Hubbard that outline some basic concepts in study technology:
(NOTE; I put all Ron Hubbard quotes in this blog post in red for ease of understanding)

The First Barrier – Lack of Mass

A student who encounters this barrier will tend to feel squashed, bent, sort of spinny, sort of dead, bored and exasperated. He can wind up with his face feeling squashed, with headaches, and with his stomach feeling funny. He can feel dizzy from time to time and very often his eyes can hurt.

The Second Barrier – Too Steep a Gradient

There is a different set of physiological reactions which occur as a result of this barrier. When one hits too steep a gradient, a sort of confusion or reelingness is experienced.

The Third Barrier – the Misunderstood Word

Going past a word or symbol for which one does not have a proper definition gives one a distinctly blank or washed-out feeling. The person will get a "not there" feeling and will begin to feel a nervous hysteria. These are manifestations distinct from either of the other two barriers.

Have you ever come to the bottom of a page only to realize you didn’t remember what you had just read? That is the phenomenon of a misunderstood word, and one will always be found just before the material became blank in your mind.

HCO Bulletin of 25 June 1971 (revised 25 November 1974),

"Barriers to Study" Ron Hubbard

In the Scientology Handbook a simple version of Hubbard's study tech is presented with his method 3 word clearing presented as Basic Word Clearing. It's a foundation of how a Scientologist approaches indoctrination and the materials he studies.

Basic Word Clearing

Basic Word Clearing is the method of finding a misunderstood word by looking earlier in the text for a misunderstood word than where one is having trouble. This is the most basic method of Word Clearing used in Scientology.

A student must know how to keep himself tearing along successfully in his studies. He should be able to handle anything that slows or interferes with his progress. He applies the Study Technology to assist himself.

A student who uses Study Technology will look up each word he comes to that he doesn’t understand and will never leave a word behind him that he doesn’t know the meaning of.

If he runs into trouble, the student himself, his study partner or his instructor (in Scientology called a Supervisor) uses Basic Word Clearing to handle anything that slowed or interfered with his progress.

Waiting to become groggy or to “dope off” (feel tired, sleepy or foggy as though doped or drugged) as the only detection of misunderstood words before handling is waiting too long. If you have ever seen a student falling asleep over his book, then you have seen dope-off. Long before that point, someone should have made the student look for a misunderstood word. The time to look for the misunderstood word is as soon as the student slows down or isn’t quite as “bright” as he was fifteen minutes before. It is not a misunderstood phrase or idea or concept but a misunderstood WORD. This always occurs before the subject itself is not understood.

Basic Word Clearing is done as follows:

1. The student is not flying along and is not so “bright” as he was or he may exhibit just plain lack of enthusiasm or be taking too long on the course or be yawning or disinterested or doodling or daydreaming, etc.

2. The student must then look earlier in the text for a misunderstood word. There is one always; there are no exceptions. It may be that the misunderstood word is two pages or more back, but it is always earlier in the text than where the student is now.

3. The word is found. The student recognizes it in looking back for it. Or, if the student can’t find it, one can take words from the text that could be the misunderstood word and ask, “What does _____ mean?” to see if the student gives the correct definition.

4. The student looks up the word found in a dictionary and clears it per the steps of clearing a misunderstood word described above. He uses it verbally several times in sentences of his own composition until he has obviously demonstrated he understands the word by the composition of his sentences.

5. The student now reads the text that contained the misunderstood word. If he is not now “bright,” eager to get on with it, feeling happier, etc., then there is another misunderstood word earlier in the text. This is found by repeating steps 2–5.

6. When the student is bright and feeling happier, he comes forward, studying the text from where the misunderstood word was to the area of the subject he did not understand (where step 1 began).

The student will now be enthusiastic about his study of the subject, and that is the end result of Basic Word Clearing. (The result won’t be achieved if a misunderstood word was missed or if there is an earlier misunderstood word in the text. If so, repeat steps 2–5.) If the student is now enthusiastic, have him continue studying.

Good Word Clearing is a system of backtracking. You have to look earlier than the point where the student became dull or confused and you’ll find that there’s a word that he doesn’t understand somewhere before the trouble started. If he doesn’t brighten up when the word is found and cleared, there will be a misunderstood word even before that one.

This will be very clear to you if you understand that if it is not resolving, the thing the student is apparently having trouble with is not the thing the student is having trouble with. Otherwise, it would resolve, wouldn’t it? If he knew what he didn’t understand, he could resolve it himself. So to talk to him about what he thinks he doesn’t understand just gets nowhere. The trouble is earlier.

Zeroing In on the Word

The formula is to find out where the student wasn’t having any trouble and find out where the student is now having trouble and the misunderstood word will be in between. It will be at the tag end—the last part—of where he wasn’t having trouble.

Basic Word Clearing is tremendously effective when done as described here. From the Scientology Handbook based on the works of Ron Hubbard

This is a key aspect of study technology. It shows the exact steps Hubbard required and the exact circumstances in which a Scientologist is required to take the steps.

Hubbard wrote: Waiting to become groggy or to “dope off” (feel tired, sleepy or foggy as though doped or drugged) as the only detection of misunderstood words before handling is waiting too long. If you have ever seen a student falling asleep over his book, then you have seen dope-off. End quote.

He described a student feeling tired or groggy as being due to misunderstood words. Okay. 

But he also said something else:

These quotes are from the Philadelphia Doctorate Course tapes, a series of lectures delivered by Hubbard in the early fifties.

Originally Posted by PDC-31 pg 16
BASIC AGREEMENT AND PROVE IT!

So, in order to _____ you have to desire it.

Now, this mechanism is, incidently, one of the interesting points of hypnotism.

When a person gets very groggy in hypnosis, he’s been put down to a point where he’s very obedient Ron Hubbard

So a groggy student is told to stop and look up a word, but a hypnotist can have a groggy person be hypnotized and obedient, according to Hubbard. Hmm.

What else did Hubbard say about this ? 

Back to the Philadelphia Doctorate Course (PDC) tapes

Originally Posted by PDC-05 pg 7 SCALES OF HANDLING 2.12.52

Well, that’s… that’s very interesting because we have hypnotism which can be demonstrated as a phenomenon,

and we show that the greater and greater agreement,

all you do to hypnotize somebody is just make him agree… agree… agree 

and after that he’ll see anything.

He’ll do anything,

he’ll see anything.

He agrees, agrees, agrees.

Originally Posted by PDC-15 pg 4 THE LOGICS:

he has volunteered.

And the next thing you know, you’ll find out he has agreed.

How is all this done?

It’s done by hypnosis; it’s done in various other ways.

Hypnosis is just a sudden agreement. 

And uh… it’s done in various ways

and then he comes down this whole long scale of agreement 

and things get more and more in agreement 

and they are probably more and more actually to his personal discredit

and uh…

antipathetic to his best beingness, habit he’s still going down the line,

and goes down the line further, ...and further, ...and further, ...and further.

And this fellow goes into apathy and he goes further and further

and further. And of course, he goes more and more under control. Ron Hubbard

So, way back in 1952 Hubbard said hypnosis is agreement and a groggy person is obedient.

But Could this really apply to a student reading or listening to a tape ?

Hubbard had definite ideas on this:


Any time anybody gets enough altitude he can be called a hypnotic operator, and what he says will act as hypnotic suggestion. Hypnotism is a difference in levels of altitude…if the operator can heighten his own altitude with regard to the subject…he doesn’t have to put the subject to sleep. What he says will still react as a hypnotic suggestion….With parity, such as occurs between acquaintances, friends, fellow students and so on, there is no hypnotic suggestion” (Education and Dianetics, 11 November 1950, Research and Discovery, volume 4). Ron Hubbard Source Jon Atack 

Here's a longer excerpt:

Any time anybody gets enough altitude he can be called a hypnotic operator, and what he says will act as hypnotic suggestion. Hypnotism is a difference in levels of altitude. There are ways to create and lower the altitude of the subject, but if the operator can heighten his own altitude with regard to the subject the same way, he doesn’t have to put the subject to sleep. What he says will still react as hypnotic suggestion.” (my italics; Education and Dianetics, 11 November 1950, Research and Discovery Series, volume 4, 1st edition, pp.324-5) source Jon Atack

Here's a longer excerpt:

ALTITUDE INSTRUCTION

“In altitude teaching, somebody is a ‘great authority.’ He is probably teaching some subject that is far more complex than it should be. He has become defensive down through the years, and this is a sort of protective coating that he puts up, along with the idea that the subject will always be a little better known by him than by anybody else and that there are things to know in this subject which he really wouldn’t let anybody else in on. This is altitude instruction … It keeps people in a state of confusion, and when their minds are slightly confused they are in a hypnotic trance. Anytime anybody gets enough altitude he can be called a hypnotic operator, and what he says will act as hypnotic suggestion. Hypnotism is a difference in levels of altitude. There are ways to create and lower the altitude of the subject, but if the operator can heighten his own altitude with regard to the subject the same way, he doesn’t have to put the subject to sleep. What he says will still react as hypnotic suggestion.” (Hubbard, Research & Discovery, volume 4, p.324)12

One error, however, must be remarked upon. The examination system employed is not much different from a certain hypnotic technique. One induces a state of confusion in the subject by raising his anxieties of what may happen if he does not pass. One then "teaches" at a mind which is anxious and confused. That mind does not then rationalize, it merely records and makes a pattern. If the pattern is sufficiently strong to be regurgitated verbatim on an examination paper, the student is then given a good grade and passed.

[End Quote]

Ron Hubbard lecture 29 August 1950, "Educational Dianetics." Source Arnie Lerma

Remember how Hubbard described nervous hysteria as coming from misunderstood words ? Isn't that a mind that's confused and anxious ? 

So, back in 1950 Hubbard saw altitude, also called authority or prestige or transference, as the key to hypnosis and NOT formal induction.  Interesting. So the student could take in what a source provides as hypnotic suggestions and be obedient if groggy, according to Hubbard if altitude has been achieved. 

Hubbard had other specific ideas:

Good Word Clearing is a system of backtracking. You have to look earlier than the point where the student became dull or confused and you’ll find that there’s a word that he doesn’t understand somewhere before the trouble started. If he doesn’t brighten up when the word is found and cleared, there will be a misunderstood word even before that one.

This will be very clear to you if you understand that if it is not resolving, the thing the student is apparently having trouble with is not the thing the student is having trouble with. Otherwise, it would resolve, wouldn’t it? If he knew what he didn’t understand, he could resolve it himself. So to talk to him about what he thinks he doesn’t understand just gets nowhere. The trouble is earlier. Ron Hubbard

So Hubbard had directed a student to look earlier and look up words, sometimes English words and sometimes Scientology words to clear as a response to blankness or the not there feeling or washed out feeling or a nervous hysteria. He directed the student to go earlier and that what the student is having trouble with isn't what they are having trouble with. A very confusing statement. Why confuse a student about what they don't get ? Check this out:


Quotes from  Ron Hubbard on the Confusion Technique: 
[Quote] 
Now, if it comes to a pass where it's very important whether or not this person acts or inacts as you wish, in interpersonal relations one of the dirtier tricks is to hang the person up on a maybe and create a confusion. And then create the confusion to the degree that your decision actually is implanted hypnotically.
The way you do this is very simple. When the person advances an argument against your decision, you never confront his argument but confront the premise on which his argument is based. That is the rule. He says, "But my professor always said that water boiled at 212 degrees."
You say, "Your professor of what?"
"My professor of physics."
"What school? How did he know?" Completely off track! You're no longer arguing about whether or not water boils at 212 degrees, but you're arguing about professors. And he will become very annoyed, but he won't know quite what he is annoyed about. You can do this so adroitly and so artfully that you can actually produce a confusion of the depth of hypnosis. The person simply goes down tone scale to a point where they're not sure of their own name.
And at that point you say, "Now, you do agree to go out and draw the water out of the well, don't you?"
"Yes-anything!" And he'll go out and draw the water out of the well. 
[End Quote] 
 Ron Hubbard Lecture, 20 May 1952 "Decision."
source Lermanet.com

So, according to Hubbard redirection of attention can confuse someone enough to achieve the depth of hypnosis. But that's what his having the student always look for something to resolve that isn't what he's having trouble with does. He's utterly confused. Hubbard had more to say on confusion and hypnosis:

“A confusion can be defined as any set of factors or circumstances which do not seem to have any immediate solution. More broadly, a confusion is random motion.” 
“Until one selects one datum, one factor, one particular in a confusion of particles, the confusion continues. The one thing selected and used becomes the stable datum for the remainder.“Any body of knowledge, more particularly and exactly, is built fromone datum. That is its stable datum. Invalidate it and the entire body of knowledge falls apart. A stable datum does not have to be the correct one. It is simply the one that keeps things from being in a confusion and on which others are aligned.” – Ron Hubbard [ref]

RON THE HYPNOTIST

Structure/Function: 11 December 1952 page 1

„All processes are based upon the original observation

that an individual could have implanted in him by hypnosis

and removed at will any obsession or aberration,

compulsion, desire, inhibition which you could think of – by hypnosis.“ 

Hypnosis, then, was the wild variable;

sometimes it worked,

sometimes it didn’t work.

It worked on some people; it didn’t work on other people.

Any time you have a variable that is as wild as this, study it.

Well, I had a high certainty already –

I had survival. Got that in 1938 or before that. And uh…Ron Hubbard

So he was trying to confuse a student, get them obedient and accepting his altitude and then his definitions for Scientology terms along with English words and his doctrine through tapes and writings.

All this was to get people under his influence ? To overcome the limits hypnosis had of sometimes working and to also be applied remotely. Remember Hubbard described hypnosis as requiring confusion, which his method creates and altitude.

So Hubbard was creating a confusion then with altitude trying to suggest his words as the answer to the confusion. A confusion from contradictions can create mental discomfort and cognitive dissonance. Cognitive Dissonance has a moment of blankness and hesitation.

That's where Hubbard inserted the suggestion. The confused person is meant to accept the suggestion without question. What is the suggestion ? Hubbard's reality through his doctrine.

Hubbard inserted his stable datum to relieve confusion, really to have it taken in on a hypnotic level. Hubbard knew his information didn't need to be correct. It just needed to align information to relieve confusion and control a student.

Here's something else Hubbard said:

Originally Posted by PDC-04 pg6
HOW TO HANDLE THEM

The hypnotist is only interested in one thing, really.

The hypnotist is interested in taking the control of this individual. Ron Hubbard

Originally Posted by STRUCTURE/FUNCTION:11.12.52

I turned around and I had hypnotism. 

I had a little advantage there because I was using hypnotism that I had learned in India.

And that doesn’t bear too much resemblance to Western hypnotism.

You’ve got variety of hypnotism there. There are ninety thousand ways of putting a guy out – I swear there must be that many ways.

I mean, you can just run on and on and on.

There’s various things you do;

you treat the perceptic lines in certain ways

and guys go „Ka- boom!“

I have been communicating with Jon Atack and want to give him credit for pointing out something to me. I got close to seeing and stating this but not quite right .

I will quote directly from an email: "I realized that throughout DMSMH he contradicts himself. I'd read it three times and never noticed. Presumably because the 'blank' that he relates to the mu actually occurs during the cognitive dissonance. Once you have confused someone, you insert the suggestions that will put them under your control ('if you knew what was wrong with your mind it, it wouldn't be wrong' is a favorite).Jon Atack

Jon Atack certainly has studied hypnosis and contradictions along with cognitive dissonance theory. I concur with his conclusion, but it fits the information Hubbard himself provided, but had hidden if you don't look through a lot of tapes. 

A key is the alleged MU or misunderstood word is actually a cover for any confusion. Sure you will run into English words you didn't know, especially since Hubbard sat with a thesaurus and tried to intentionally make his references difficult to understand to confuse and impress people, to give him altitude as a fake highly educated man. But you will also be confused by contradictions in Scientology and Orwellian reversals Hubbard uses with his terms and phrases. 

Remember Hubbard called hypnosis sudden agreement. The key moments of blankness from confusion are the opportunity to get that sudden agreement. 

Like Hubbard described with the well. Get a person confused while they accept your altitude and YOU can insert the command hypnotically.

Remember, Hubbard had all processes based on his observations on hypnosis and the variable that on some people it worked and some it didn't. It worked sometimes and it didn't sometimes. 

He was trying to control people. All people all the time, or as close as possible. That was his goal with Scientology. 

In the next post in this series I hope to show his intentions. With his own words of course. 

For further reading I will list several references and the areas they elaborate on.

Regarding mind control in Scientology:

Insidious Enslavement: Study Technology
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/01/i...ology.html?m=0

Basic Introduction To Hypnosis In  Scientology

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/01/b...is-in.html?m=0

Pissed It's Not Your Fault !!!

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/01/p...fault.html?m=0

The Critical Factor

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/201...

The Secret Of Scientology Part 1 Control Via Contradiction

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/01/t...art-1.html?m=0

Burning Down Hell - How Commands Are Hidden, Varied And Repeated To Control You As Hypnotic Implants

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/02/m...-hell.html?m=0

Humbling Simplicity
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/201...

The Empty Well

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/201...

Why Hubbard Never Claimed OT Feats And The Rock Bottom Basis Of Scientology

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/02/m...never.html?m=0

Regarding Hubbard's uses of loaded language with reversals of truth

Propaganda By Reversal Of Meaning In Scientology

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/03/p...ng-in.html?m=0

Regarding the narcissism and sociopathic tendencies in Ron Hubbard and his cult

Scientology's Parallel In Nature - Malignant Narcissism

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/05/s...ure_3.html?m=0

Regarding Dissociation

Exteriorization Versus Dissociation

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/201...