Soooo was there anything you guys actually liked about Scientology?

[guanoloco]

I like the original tone scale by Volney Matheson better:

This is an image of the Tone Scale - in relation to the TA knob of an E-meter (c) 1957 by Volney Matheson, the inventor of the e-meter:

Science Vs. Pseudoscience: A Brief History of How Scientology’s E-Meter Came Into Existence – Part 3

Prior to launching his book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health on May 9, 1950, L. Ron Hubbard refined his auditing techniques by experimenting on many people over a period of several ye…

scientologymoneyproject.com

How to exit a woman from scientology - Volney vs Hubbard's Tone scale - Trap Exposed

Consider the implication of the following claim...of this change... of this alteration...of prior art: In the Book of E-meter Drills (i believe it...

www.forum.exscn.net

The lure of the pseudoscientific vocabulary and promises of dianetics cannot but condemn thousands who are beginning to emerge from scientific illiteracy to a continuation of their susceptibility to word-magic and semantic hash.

S.I. HAYAKAWA 1951

That image is the position of the emeter Tone Arm (TA) and has nothing to do with the arbitrary numbers of the Emotional Tone Scale (ie 1.0, 1.1, 1.5, 2.0, etc).

Volney never had a Tone Scale before Hubbard's. That linked Arnie thread even has a post saying Dianetics the Original Thesis from 1948 had the Tone Scale.

Hubbard's Tone Scale was at the very beginning in Dianetics - long before any emeter.

Also, that Arnie thread is a red herring. The Volney image merely has a female body at the 3.0 TA position - it doesn't say anything about the female/male bodies 2.0/3.0 thing.

Volney never claimed and that image isn't claiming anything about the differences in female/male body reads.

Anyone can be at 3.0.

This shouldn't be confused.

I think Arnie was confused here, too.

I'm not saying there's any truth to the 2.0/3.0 body reads. I'm saying that Volney never had an Emotional Tone Scale that Hubbard stole. Emeter position and the Tone Scale are not the same...even if the emeter was an attempt to read it.

 

[The_Fixer]

I was involved in two spheres of activity in the mid/late sixties. Messing about in rock bands and working as staff. I got laid more times on staff.

Getting laid was a fait accompli for me.

It just never happened....

 

[stratty]

Getting laid was a fait accompli for me.

It just never happened....

Maybe you shoulda wiped some of that axle grease off of your hands and face before you propositioned them.

 

[guanoloco]

Thanks pineapple. Yes it was clear as day that the staff who were suppose to be "clear" .. were not. The person in charge was constantly questioning my reality and their own, the highest tone person there seemed to be in love with manipulation and control, one incredibly obese women at the reception just casually brings up the topic of having sex with animals and how someone with such thoughts needs auditing, etc. etc.

So although I have no delusions about Hubbard's claims being bogus, you are right in assuming that I'm hoping there is still some value that can be salvaged from the enormous landfill he left behind. He never sourced where he got his information so it is a bit difficult tracking down. So far I'm aware of Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Aleister Crowley / Parsons / OTO, and now just today Volney Matheson.

Volney is in no way the source of Hubbard's Tone Scale.

 

[The_Fixer]

Maybe you shoulda wiped some of that axle grease off of your hands and face before you propositioned them.

Oh...

I suppose I could've put me teeth in as well.

 

[stratty]

Oh...

I suppose I could've put me teeth in as well.

Oh, I never bothered.

 

[Deleted member 51]

I loved the things i learned after Scientology.

What crosses my mind today is that stupid datum by Hubbard, "If it isn't written, it isn't true," and its corollary, "If L. Ron Hubbard wrote it, it must be true."

What a wonderful feeling of intellectual freedom to discover that this was just a propaganda line, designed to make the Scn masses do what the cult wanted.

L Ron Hubbard was full of shit. Scientology is a money-making operation.

It's weird to see some ex-Scientologists still follow this "If it's written, it must be true" datum. They believe some of the oddest, most controversial things when right in front of their eyes they can see the information is false. They don't believe what is in front of them, though. That was part of being in Scientology - not believing what I see, or what I had previously learned, not believing what I knew to be true, but instead, believing Hubbard's and the cult of Scientology's versions of things, because "it was written."

 

[stratty]

I loved the things i learned after Scientology.

What crosses my mind today is that stupid datum by Hubbard, "If it isn't written, it isn't true," and its corollary, "If L. Ron Hubbard wrote it, it must be true."

What a wonderful feeling of intellectual freedom to discover that this was just a propaganda line, designed to make the Scn masses do what the cult wanted.

L Ron Hubbard was full of shit. Scientology is a money-making operation.

It's weird to see some ex-Scientologists still follow this "If it's written, it must be true" datum. They believe some of the oddest, most controversial things when right in front of their eyes they can see the information is false. They don't believe what is in front of them, though. That was part of being in Scientology - not believing what I see, or what I had previously learned, not believing what I knew to be true, but instead, believing Hubbard's and the cult of Scientology's versions of things, because "it was written."

Yes, and another one was the 'If it's true for you ...' malarkey. Reminds me a bit of 'Alternative facts'.

 

[Veda]

Just a general public pre-clear here. 4 years ago I did about 3 months of study, joined the church and then quit less than a month later.

Things I found useful:
As someone who formerly couldn't see his own emotions, I found Hubbard's whole "tone-scale" chart to be pretty useful.
I was formerly pretty illiterate, special-ed, so I found study tech to be "a godsend".
I currently can't really do self-analysis without immediately plummeting my emotions, so at the very least it increased my self awareness of my own suffering.
I felt the 1 free hour session of auditing I received had a lot of impact. My entire life I felt like I couldn't get angry. It was beyond me. But after that 1 session I was ready to take the chair I was sitting on and smash it into the ground. Oh mannn did I tear into the staff when they tried to stop me from leaving. Basically catharsis.

I'm currently reading Dianetics. I thought auditing with a partner would be a good experience? Thoughts?

Have to run some errands, but quickly plunked down these three threads which may be of interest.

The Those who "quit fast" thread

The Experiences using the Self Analysis book thread

The Scientology exploits catharsis thread

 

[The_Fixer]

Yes, and another one was the 'If it's true for you ...' malarkey. Reminds me a bit of 'Alternative facts'.

Wasn't Scientology the original antifa?

 

[Zertel]

I like the original tone scale by Volney Matheson better:

This is an image of the Tone Scale - in relation to the TA knob of an E-meter (c) 1957 by Volney Matheson, the inventor of the e-meter:

Science Vs. Pseudoscience: A Brief History of How Scientology’s E-Meter Came Into Existence – Part 3

Prior to launching his book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health on May 9, 1950, L. Ron Hubbard refined his auditing techniques by experimenting on many people over a period of several ye…

scientologymoneyproject.com

How to exit a woman from scientology - Volney vs Hubbard's Tone scale - Trap Exposed

Consider the implication of the following claim...of this change... of this alteration...of prior art: In the Book of E-meter Drills (i believe it...

www.forum.exscn.net

The lure of the pseudoscientific vocabulary and promises of dianetics cannot but condemn thousands who are beginning to emerge from scientific illiteracy to a continuation of their susceptibility to word-magic and semantic hash.

S.I. HAYAKAWA 1951

Thanks for posting the Science Vs. Pseudoscience article. I had no idea that Mathison himself did some experimenting with "auditing" and had investigated various "therapies". I also found the description of the early days of Dianetics interesting.

The "topic" has no date stamp so I don't know how old it is. I find that a bit frustrating on some of the posts on this board.

 

[Harold#1]

Thanks for posting the Science Vs. Pseudoscience article. I had no idea that Mathison himself did some experimenting with "auditing" and had investigated various "therapies". I also found the description of the early days of Dianetics interesting.

The "topic" has no date stamp so I don't know how old it is. I find that a bit frustrating on some of the posts on this board.

This topic has a date of Thursday at 10:29 PM

The exscn post has this date on it Lermanet_com, Aug 16, 2011

The Scientology Money Project article has a MARCH 21, 2020 date.

 

[Harold#1]

That image is the position of the emeter Tone Arm (TA) and has nothing to do with the arbitrary numbers of the Emotional Tone Scale (ie 1.0, 1.1, 1.5, 2.0, etc).

Volney never had a Tone Scale before Hubbard's. That linked Arnie thread even has a post saying Dianetics the Original Thesis from 1948 had the Tone Scale.

Hubbard's Tone Scale was at the very beginning in Dianetics - long before any emeter.

Also, that Arnie thread is a red herring. The Volney image merely has a female body at the 3.0 TA position - it doesn't say anything about the female/male bodies 2.0/3.0 thing.

Volney never claimed and that image isn't claiming anything about the differences in female/male body reads.

Anyone can be at 3.0.

This shouldn't be confused.

I think Arnie was confused here, too.

I'm not saying there's any truth to the 2.0/3.0 body reads. I'm saying that Volney never had an Emotional Tone Scale that Hubbard stole. Emeter position and the Tone Scale are not the same...even if the emeter was an attempt to read it.

Jeffrey Augustine wrote "it was Mathison who created the Tone Scale". Maybe @Karen#1 could ask him to comment on this.

"As other commentators have noted — and we deeply appreciate their research — it was Mathison who created the Tone Scale. He did so in order to give his electropsychometric practitioners a basis to classify their patients based upon readings observed on the Mathison e-meter. We mention the Tone Scale as Mathison had created a lock-and-key system in which the Mathison meter was intended for use only with Mathison’s written guidance, instructions, interpretations of needle reads, and the other written specifics of the system he had devised or would devise in the future."

"Conversely, Hubbard had taken a different direction in 1951 by devising his cumbersome and bloated Chart of Human Evaluation. This chart was Hubbard’s attempt at creating a psychometric basis to classify human behavior within a Dianetic framework."

 

[james087]

Have to run some errands, but quickly plunked down these three threads which may be of interest.

The Those who "quit fast" thread

The Experiences using the Self Analysis book thread

The Scientology exploits catharsis thread

I found the 2nd and 3rd thread you listed on google and they where what convinced me to signup for these forums! The first thread makes me feel right at home. Thanks for sharing

 

[james087]

Jeffrey Augustine wrote "it was Mathison who created the Tone Scale". Maybe @Karen#1 could ask him to comment on this.

So yesterday I sorta sent that image to a current Scientologist that I've kinda made friends with. I told her I like to look into things that inspired L Ron. I can tell her head is spinning. So far all she's replied with is that she loves it and will get back to me with a better response. I wonder how this will go.

 

[pineapple]

Jeffrey Augustine wrote "it was Mathison who created the Tone Scale". Maybe @Karen#1 could ask him to comment on this.

"As other commentators have noted — and we deeply appreciate their research — it was Mathison who created the Tone Scale. He did so in order to give his electropsychometric practitioners a basis to classify their patients based upon readings observed on the Mathison e-meter. We mention the Tone Scale as Mathison had created a lock-and-key system in which the Mathison meter was intended for use only with Mathison’s written guidance, instructions, interpretations of needle reads, and the other written specifics of the system he had devised or would devise in the future."

"Conversely, Hubbard had taken a different direction in 1951 by devising his cumbersome and bloated Chart of Human Evaluation. This chart was Hubbard’s attempt at creating a psychometric basis to classify human behavior within a Dianetic framework."

I believe @guanoloco is correct here. Hubbard explains the tone scale in DMSMH and even earlier. Here's a letter Hubbard wrote to Robert Heinlein in March 1949. He explains the tone scale beginning on page four (originally posted by @Caroline).

On Excalibur

There are a number of threads on the original ESMB that get into Hubbard's 1938 Excalibur manuscript: Hubbard's recurring theme from Excalibur to Dianetics to Scientology to OT levels Research Timeline for Hubbard's "Excalibur" About Excalibur (original manuscript) What's this "Excalibur"...

exscn2.net

I don't believe Hubbard and Mathison had any contact until well after Dianetics was already a "thing," which it certainly wasn't in early 1949. Mathison is never mentioned by people who were around at the very beginning, like J. A. Winter, Don Rogers, Helen O'Brien*, or Perry Chapdelaine. If he'd contributed something as significant as the tone scale, don't you think they would have?

There were no meters used in early dianetics. I don't believe they started using meters until 1952.

If Jeff Augustine says otherwise I'd want to see the evidence (with all due respect, of course).

*Edit: I have to correct myself slightly here. Helen O'Brien DOES mention Mathison in Dianetics in Limbo, but that's in 1952, and she says he made the first e-meter in response to Hubbard's suggestions. See my later post on this subject.

 

[guanoloco]

I believe @guanoloco is correct here. Hubbard explains the tone scale in DMSMH and even earlier. Here's a letter Hubbard wrote to Robert Heinlein in March 1949. He explains the tone scale beginning on page four (originally posted by @Caroline).

On Excalibur

There are a number of threads on the original ESMB that get into Hubbard's 1938 Excalibur manuscript: Hubbard's recurring theme from Excalibur to Dianetics to Scientology to OT levels Research Timeline for Hubbard's "Excalibur" About Excalibur (original manuscript) What's this "Excalibur"...

exscn2.net

I don't believe Hubbard and Mathison had any contact until well after Dianetics was already a "thing," which it certainly wasn't in early 1949. Mathison is never mentioned by people who were around at the very beginning, like A. J. Winter, Don Rogers, Helen O'Brien, or Perry Chapdelaine. If he'd contributed something as significant as the tone scale, don't you think they would have?

There were no meters used in early dianetics. I don't believe they started using meters until 1952.

If Jeff Augustine says otherwise I'd want to see the evidence (with all due respect, of course).

Exactly, Pineapple. I'm out and about but when I can I'll quote the Dianetics pdf and see if I have an Original Thesis pdf.

Mathison got inspiration for the e-meter from a Hubbard lecture.

Why was he at a Hubbard lecture?

Because of Dianetics - published in May, 1950.

In Dianetics the Tone Scale is covered by the bear hunter getting attacked and getting an engram.

Apparently Original Thesis was published in 1948. That's what's posted on the Arnie Lerma thread.

The 1st e-meter was 1951 - the same year Hubbard published Science of Survival.

I don't know where Hubbard got the Tone Scale but it wasn't from Mathison.

I've never seen a satisfactory example that Hubbard plagiarized - maybe it's his, IDK.

One time I came across a claim or post that named an earlier psychology or psychiatric text but I've never found it.

My guess is Mathison never heard of "tones" until Hubbard.


Incidentally that Mathison diagram has 1954 as a date.

 

[Veda]

I found the 2nd and 3rd thread you listed on google and they where what convinced me to signup for these forums! The first thread makes me feel right at home. Thanks for sharing

Surprised you found the last two threads through google. Glad they convinced you to join ESMBR.

Nice to hear that the first thread was helpful.

​

 

[F.Bullbait]

The thing I like about Scientology is that I get to know all sorts of Ex-Scientologists.

 

[Riddick]

Just a general public pre-clear here. 4 years ago I did about 3 months of study, joined the church and then quit less than a month later.

Things I found useful:
As someone who formerly couldn't see his own emotions, I found Hubbard's whole "tone-scale" chart to be pretty useful.
I was formerly pretty illiterate, special-ed, so I found study tech to be "a godsend".
I currently can't really do self-analysis without immediately plummeting my emotions, so at the very least it increased my self awareness of my own suffering.
I felt the 1 free hour session of auditing I received had a lot of impact. My entire life I felt like I couldn't get angry. It was beyond me. But after that 1 session I was ready to take the chair I was sitting on and smash it into the ground. Oh mannn did I tear into the staff when they tried to stop me from leaving. Basically catharsis.

I'm currently reading Dianetics. I thought auditing with a partner would be a good experience? Thoughts?

"I'm currently reading Dianetics. I thought auditing with a partner would be a good experience? Thoughts? "

If you are currently reading dianetics, then you will need a partner who has also read dianetics,

both of you will be auditing your selfs to the state of of Clear. That is the main theme of the book, that is you can go Clear, or be a human being without psychosomatic illness.

Let me tell you that this is not true. No two people that have read Dianetics have achieved the state of Clear. Nor have any people who got professional auditing from the Church of Scientology.

While there are claims of "clear", it actually has never happened.

Don't let me stop you, get a partner who has read dianetics and audit yourselfs.

Many have tried.