tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post8026214073522928504..comments2023-09-18T04:45:52.991-07:00Comments on Ask the Scientologist: Scientology's Admin TechJust Billhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-37239528892805653712012-09-11T15:02:58.914-07:002012-09-11T15:02:58.914-07:00Good call!Good call!Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-90245768800217687682012-09-11T14:33:54.560-07:002012-09-11T14:33:54.560-07:00Thank you for this info. I mistakenly interviewed ...Thank you for this info. I mistakenly interviewed at a company today that is run by Scientologists in the Management Technology method. UGH. I don't want any part of this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-76450879419250155612010-05-12T18:50:05.258-07:002010-05-12T18:50:05.258-07:00I worked at WISE a long time ago and can verify th...I worked at WISE a long time ago and can verify that the WISE consultants work from rewritten secularized subset of policy. The successful companies I know of, operate from those. Thank you for helping me work thru this confusion.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09990213585593976476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-17161764130985108792010-05-11T20:51:51.436-07:002010-05-11T20:51:51.436-07:00@Ann
I'm not so sure about how successful the...@Ann<br /><br />I'm not so sure about how successful the various "Scientology companies" really are. I've read the "success stories" but that's not evidence and that's not facts.<br /><br />Also, it is my understanding that W.I.S.E. consultants aren't working from the full green volumes, nor from actual Scientology policies but from a rewritten "secularized" subset of policy.<br /><br />Which policies did they choose to implement? How were they revised? What <i>other</i> business practices do they <i>also</i> include?<br /><br />Without that information, it would be impossible to figure out whether <i>any</i> companies are using pure Hubbard policies, nor what the actual results have been.<br /><br />Maybe someone who has experience with both W.I.S.E. and church organizations can clarify what actually is going on.Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-55964652224973349462010-05-11T19:02:16.284-07:002010-05-11T19:02:16.284-07:00Hi Just Bill,
I was thinking about the Admin Tech ...Hi Just Bill,<br />I was thinking about the Admin Tech today and just want to vent. I hope that is okay. Do you remember the policy that says that if stats are down that means that someone is pushing them down? This might be part of "The Why is God" reference. I don't have my green-on-white handly, so I can't go look it up.<br />Anyway, I really objected to this reference. Let's say it is Christmas and public want to be with their family or shop or God forbid, sing Christmas carols and decorate the house. BUT NO. Stats can't go down. So staff had to hammer public to put in extra time and etc. So holidays were feared by staff, much like Thursdays at 2:00PM because heads would roll if stats were down. <br />When I would question the rationality of applying that reference in that manner, the answer I would get would be "there is always something one can do". And the hidden message was "unless are you being suppressively reasonable!" GLARE.<br />My viewpoint was "or you can just relax and enjoy Christmas". But my viewpoint was not very popular.<br />So my experience on staff completely proves your point. The Admin Tech was nutty, at least the way I saw it applied. And that is just one of MANY examples. And I am sure you could write your own book on this.<br />But if I may, I would like to play devils advocate for a minute. <br />What about those groups like Singer and Sterling who are field consultants and sell the Admin Tech to chiropractors, physical therapists and dentists? Over the years, I have meet a number of those types who were extremely happy because the Tech was helping them achieve their goals, expand their practices, live more balanced lives, etc. And they happily became Scientologists. <br />This winning group, however, was quite different from the Scientologists I saw who tried themselves to put Tech in their companies. The majority had businesses that were failing. This dichotomy always puzzeled me. <br />If you have any insights on how this could be, I would be happy to hear them.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09990213585593976476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-46360625034552467872010-05-11T06:56:48.707-07:002010-05-11T06:56:48.707-07:00@Ann
The point isn't that Hubbard Management ...@Ann<br /><br />The point isn't that Hubbard Management Tech is total crap, some parts are not bad. The problem is that significant parts of it are really, really horrible -- and <i>will</i> destroy an organization.<br /><br />And you are not <i>supposed</i> to pick and choose. According to Scientology it is <i>all</i> perfect and nothing can be omitted.<br /><br />But even if you <i>do</i> select out the "good" and reject the bad, what you have left doesn't match the already proven management systems worked out by actual business people and tested in actual businesses.<br /><br />Maybe a Scientologist, by carefully picking and choosing and fudging and fixing, can make a "Scientology company" work, but that <i>really</i> isn't a glowing endorsement of the Hubbard Management Tech, is it?Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-39767481506149815562010-05-10T23:03:14.359-07:002010-05-10T23:03:14.359-07:00There is the Management Tech. Then there is the C...There is the Management Tech. Then there is the Church (true believers) and then Others. When Others apply it, it seems to have some workability. I know of some Scientology companies that are successful and run on LRH management tech. To wit: Survival Strategies and Survival Insurance. What I don't know is whether management threw out the stuff that didn't make sense and kept what did make sense. <br />I have worked in Church environments and the whole stat thing was such an incredible waste of time. It starts with keeping the stat,reporting the stat, graphing the stat, doing Conditions on the stat, production meetings about the stats and then there is the FEAR FACTOR which zaps creativity and innovation. It's a killer. Now maybe LRH didn't mean it to be that way. But that's the way it is and I have never seen it otherwise in a Church environment. And why...because LRH has to be 100% right or else. That makes for a pretty crazy scene. <br />Since Scientology isn't a religion in Germany, they have the luxury of being sensible. Also I believe Ron's Org is part of the Indie field. Again, that would give them the luxury of being sensible. <br />So I don't know if it is fair to say the Managment Tech is crap or that once Scientology morphed into a religion, common sense went out the window and without judgment just about any system is crap.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09990213585593976476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-54162986914035516772010-02-13T23:41:27.243-08:002010-02-13T23:41:27.243-08:00Dear Just Bill,
Agreed that the sane, sensible Sci...Dear Just Bill,<br />Agreed that the sane, sensible Scientologist would keep what works and throw out what doesn't. However, LRH's "Keeping Admin Working" Policy Letters makes that a crime. That is a problem if you are on staff. Sounds like Ron's Org in Frankfurt has found a way around that. Good for them.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09990213585593976476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-78645609073723955732009-11-14T12:07:01.323-08:002009-11-14T12:07:01.323-08:00@Anonymous Re: Awareness Levels
Sorry, didn't...@Anonymous Re: Awareness Levels<br /><br />Sorry, didn't make much sense out of what you wrote. I know what you're talking about, the Scientology Awareness Levels, but I really don't see how that has anything to do with reality.<br /><br />I no longer try to shoehorn Scientology concepts into real world situations. It always obscures rather than enlightens. I have much better success just seeing what is there, without adding artificial numbers, charts, labels and so on.<br /><br />But that's just me.Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-12744562160905379742009-11-14T08:55:45.574-08:002009-11-14T08:55:45.574-08:00They are often called robots, the ones who: “canno...They are often called robots, the ones who: “cannot see, cannot accept and cannot correct.” Recognition is AL (Awareness Level): “+1”, Robotism is midway down the negative ALs. Some are clear on all subjects, some on a few subjects, some on none. At your level you’ll recognise truth faster than those on a lower level. <br />Between -1 Help and +1 Recognition would probably go: 0 Order: you file: ‘like with like’, so creating Orderly files, so creating Recognition (includes (as in flowchart) Contexts), so creating ‘Communication, Perception, Orientation, Understanding, Enlightenment,’... etc. If you’re below that level you wont accord Order the importance (not more, and not less) that it deserves, and so stack up charge for ommitting an AL all subsequent ALs are built on. Bit like if you dont have -4 ‘Need of Change’ you dont have any subsequent ALs on that subject for lack of interest in it (the Tone Scale echos the ALs). <br />http://creativeinspiration.org/uncategorized/dos-and-donts-guide-to-great-web-design/ basically says: 1. Identify flowchart sector/pages, then 2. Wireframe out sector/page functions, 3. Designate fonts, pictures, etc – that is like AL 0 Order – so is net 3.0 Giant Global Graph, net 4.0 WebOS (Web Operating System), etc – bringing Order/making intuitive/clearing context distortions, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-9849998552413570732009-10-30T07:07:07.945-07:002009-10-30T07:07:07.945-07:00@MBA
Thanks for your comments and observations. ...@MBA<br /><br />Thanks for your comments and observations. Good stuff, much appreciated.<br /><br />You've pointed out one of the basic flaws in all of Hubbard's work. Because it is studied and applied by <i>true believers</i>, they are unable to correctly observe its failures and shortcomings, or to adapt. While Hubbard <i>did</i> borrow from "whatever worked", his devoted followers cannot. Hence, massive failures which they cannot see, cannot accept and cannot correct.<br /><br />Thanks.Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-90193212733720386452009-10-30T02:01:56.192-07:002009-10-30T02:01:56.192-07:00I just read through this back and forth on the &qu...I just read through this back and forth on the "Admin Tech." SCN Anonymous sounds like a Born Again Christian arguing against Evolution. Religion doesn't kill, people kill.<br /><br /> I was trained on all the SCN/SO Admin Tech. After leaving I went back to school and got a working MBA. I went through my Business studies with the intention of deciphering my SO experience...false data stripping so to speak. And after spending almost 30 years managing large Projects for some of the largest companies in the world and being successful at it, I know a bit about real Admin Tech and it's correct utilization for continued results. The inherent tendency for departmental sub-optimization when incorrect statistical management is used seems to be ever present, and the push of individual statistics with conditions in orgs where there is a total lack of experienced and knowledgeable leadership typically results in total mayhem. <br /><br />Hubbard was never above using existing WOG material when putting together management stuff. I remember that the CMO, when directed to pull together info on filming, came back to him with the few mentions he himself had made in past tapes and bulletins. He looked at it and told them to go over to Hollywood, as filming tech had already been developed. He warned that you just had to make sure you pulled the good from the bad. Hubbard's goal in pulling together Admin tech was to give the orgs some structure and process so that the money would flow. It is interesting that I found WOG books that predated Hubbard's "discovery" of different Admin processes and strategies. And, I have to tell you, management technology has grown light years beyond the simple stuff he found back in the 60's. Hell, he probably had to be simple, as he had a bunch of starry eyed, untrained idiots between him and the public he was trying to get money out of. The Military put together Project Management tech during WWII and the stuff of the Data Evaluator's course was out there also. Same with Marketing tech. <br /> <br />Pushing to get individual stats up weekly is just wrong. And having individual stats that conditions are applied to tilts the deck when leaders don't understand all the variables and are under the same gun themselves.<br /><br />Statistics will always fluctuate because of normal variables, even in a controlled process. It is the noise of the process itself that creates this fluctuation. Only fluctuations outside of the process noise (there are ways to determine that), require individual attention. Otherwise, one should be attempting to improve the overall process. Deming (father of Quality) stated that 95% of problems in business is due to process and not individuals. So...putting all the attention on each person and their production keeps attention from being put on the overall process that management should be improving. SCN's stat management is along the same lines of blaming all case handling deficiencies on the preclear/preOT. It is great for manipulating people. <br /> <br />I continue to be perplexed that people with little or no education in management technology set themselves up as experts from studying the simplistic and sometimes erroneous stuff Hubbard had others fudge together for him (oh, yes he did...and didn't give anyone else credit). Most policy bulletins handled immediate deficiencies in operations, and were kind of am "idiots guide to how to take the garbage out". He definitely had his opinions about how the garbage should be taken out, but we don't know the underlying motivation or reasoning on it. "Don't you see?"MBAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-31287555403874338512009-06-30T20:57:37.051-07:002009-06-30T20:57:37.051-07:00Re: Mountain View vs Ron's Org
Thanks for the...Re: Mountain View vs Ron's Org<br /><br />Thanks for the first hand report. It's very true -- successful Scientologists have always been those who are smart enough to do what <i>works</i>, not just rotely follow Ron's arbitrary dictates.Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-28757012933933071712009-06-30T11:48:08.500-07:002009-06-30T11:48:08.500-07:00I've carefully observed both Mountain View Org...I've carefully observed both Mountain View Org and Rons Org Frankfurt. Both orgs deliver roughly the same amount of service -- that is, students on course, and total amount of TA in the HGC in a given week. Yet, Mountain View has 86 staff, and Frankfurt has only 4. The difference? Rons Org does not necessarily apply admin tech if they find it doesn't work. Oh, no call-in is needed either. The academy fills up with no phone calls.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-84673986282227790992009-01-11T09:12:00.000-08:002009-01-11T09:12:00.000-08:00@AnonymousThanks for the additional information. ...@Anonymous<BR/>Thanks for the additional information. Yes, it doesn't take much analysis to uncover the fundamental flaws of management by statistics.<BR/><BR/>Scientology staff absolutely <I>dread</I> "Thursdays at 2:00" when statistics are turned in, yet they cannot accept the idea that <I>anything is wrong</I> with it. I guess the rest of the world should be glad that the Church of Scientology uses Hubbard's Admin Tech. It pretty much guarantees that the church fails.Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-206291465092607392009-01-11T06:58:00.000-08:002009-01-11T06:58:00.000-08:00Go to any major university's college of business a...Go to any major university's college of business and ask them about management by statistics. Get ready for a lot of laughing.<BR/><BR/>My dad was a management consultant in the 1960s and 1970s, and wrote about management by objectives when it was a new idea. <BR/><BR/>He showed me and my siblings when we were kids (we will never forget his dinner-table examples, using cutlery and food as visual aids) how management by statistics was a flawed system.<BR/><BR/>Google management by statistics and you'll see a bunch of WISE businesses pushing it - but nobody else.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-9287171233868132212008-11-19T07:43:00.000-08:002008-11-19T07:43:00.000-08:00Thanks Truth,You sound like you've been there. An...Thanks Truth,<BR/><BR/>You sound like you've been there. Anyone wanting to read what the application of Hubbard's Admin Tech was like at the highest levels of the church should read <A HREF="http://counterfeitdreams.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">Counterfeit Dreams</A>. Eye opening!Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-67681806185216735202008-11-18T23:03:00.000-08:002008-11-18T23:03:00.000-08:00Hubbard set up Management tech so that nothing get...Hubbard set up Management tech so that nothing gets done. <BR/>It has NOTHING to do with whether staff are hatted or not. Because it really doesn't matter. <BR/>Hubbard's Admin tech is set up to ONLY manage and not DO. Even the lower staff are busy doing BP's, conditions, keeping track of stats, putting together compliance reports, comm evs, musters, staff meetings etc. <BR/>And for anyone wondering, Hubbard Management Technology IS Scientology! Literally.Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02392690238051083042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-32412619602286512802008-09-24T12:24:00.000-07:002008-09-24T12:24:00.000-07:00I'm not going to argue with you. We actually are ...I'm not going to argue with you. We actually are in agreement. Some of the stuff included in Hubbard's Admin Tech works. Some does not. We could debate percentages, perhaps. Any intelligent person can make the workable stuff work and can discard the crap. Those, like Miscavige, who have low intelligence, can't do that. Actually, it appears that Miscavige actually prefers the policies that are most destructive.<BR/><BR/>The mystery, as you point out, is how True Believers could put Hubbard up there as "perfect" when so much of his supposedly flawless technologies have obvious problems.Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-52861539664330496952008-09-24T10:39:00.000-07:002008-09-24T10:39:00.000-07:00"You claim that, in the thousands of organizations..."You claim that, in the thousands of organizations that have used Hubbard's Admin Tech (and many tried very, very hard), none of them applied it 'correctly' and that's why it didn't work."<BR/><BR/>OK, first of all, I made no such claim. I'm talking about the church, which is supposed to be applying the policies. Second, your assertion is an instance of the fallacy of large numbers. Worse, you are suggesting that you know that Hubbard's admin policy has never worked for any company which has tried it (yet I can think of two that I know of which currently use it). Where are your data sources for this? You fault the church for making unsubstantiated and unprovable claims -- do you hold yourself to your own standard, or is it OK for you to just make stuff up as it suits your argument?<BR/><BR/>Factually, I don't know, Just Bill, whether any businesses have applied it correctly or not. (Not even the two I know about.) If they were applying it the way Miscavige (mis-)applies it, then of course (!) they were doing it very, very wrong, no matter whatever else they were doing.<BR/><BR/>What I'm saying is that, as far as running the church is concerned -- for which Hubbard's policies were explicitly written -- show me just one organization, mission, whatever, which actually applies the admin correctly and completely -- because I have yet to find one that doesn't pick and choose policies that suit its collective dramatizations, rather than adhering to all of it.<BR/><BR/>"... but it merely points out the fact that applying Hubbard's stuff 'correctly' and completely is, by real world test, impossible." You're still clinging to that specious idea. Please explain to me how it's impossible, by real world test, to refund people's money promptly and then simply refuse any further service? Please explain to me how the purchase order system is impossible, by real world test, to implement? Please explain to me how, in the real world, it's impossible to plan things more than a week in advance? Please explain to me how it's impossible, in the real world, to write out a complete invoice? Please explain to me how it's impossible, in the real world, to use an in-basket/out-basket system? Please explain to me how it's impossible, in the real world, to throw away crap policies that are detrimental to the success of the organization? Etc., etc., etc.<BR/><BR/>Those are all simple policies. They are not hard to implement (unless you fail to implement financial planning properly and spend everything without anticipating that there will be refund requests...). In fact, they exist easily enough in the real world, in some form or another, in all of the (non-Scientology) companies I've worked (and currently work) for. These ideas aren't new to Hubbard, either. Scientology has its own spin on things, sure, but those are relevant for the church.<BR/><BR/>There is a lot of good policy. This does not mean, however, that it's the only possible policy, and it doesn't mean that it's all good, either.<BR/><BR/>Policy is about having decisions made and agreed to so that everyone knows what to expect and doesn't have to try to solve problems we've already got answers for. That's the only reason we have policies -- whether it's a church or a government agency or a retail store. Doesn't matter if they're Hubbard's policies or someone else's.<BR/><BR/>Scientology includes its ESTO system, and its statistics, and its conditions formulas, and most especially its ethics system, and these are certainly among the more controversial aspects. And in some cases, these are pathetic policies to implement, especially outside of Scientology. If Scientologists weren't so fixated on Hubbard-like-Jesus and could actually think for themselves, they could see how these systems are being abused by suppressives and clearly need to be modified or abandoned.<BR/><BR/>CounterfeitDreams makes the point especially well with respect to statistics versus book sales in the real world. Heck, every retailer knows that post-Christmas, there is a sales slump. Every retailer understands that seasonal variation happen. My own employer knows that purchases tend to pick up at the end of the business year because business units have budgets they need to spend to justify having their large budgets, and then it continues into the new year because new annual budgets means business units have some money to spend. Summers are the slow period in my industry. And every farmer knows that he has no harvest during the winter and he plans for that. Educators couldn't possibly be getting student points during vacation periods (OMG! DOWNSTAT!) Etc., etc., etc. So the church's unreasonableness-as-a-virtue is just some other stupid fixed idea which doesn't work as an absolute. It's not a bad policy, it's just that the real world doesn't work that way or respond well to hard sell 24/7.<BR/><BR/>I have seen far too many instances, however, of people complaining that something "didn't work" (not Scientology-related) only to find out that they didn't follow the directions properly -- or even at all in some cases. I can't count how many times I've come across this. Doesn't matter if it's running a piece of software, following a dietary or health regimen, or even bowling. It would be hardly surprising (and so far I've seen far too many examples of it) of people in Scientology failing by *not* applying Scientology policies, rather than failing because they're applying Scientology policies, and yet insisting that they're "following Scientology policy". In fact, that's all I saw in Scientology: policy after policy after policy *not* being followed because of the altered importance of "GET THE STATS UP!" Stupid, stupid, stupid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-24787999066384070972008-09-24T08:09:00.000-07:002008-09-24T08:09:00.000-07:00I don't have my Policy Volumes anymore so I can't ...I don't have my Policy Volumes anymore so I can't quote any. But, as I said in my article, one of the key indicators is that there are no successful companies that actually use Hubbard's stuff <I>because when they've tried, it doesn't work</I>.<BR/><BR/>You claim that, in the <I>thousands</I> of organizations that have used Hubbard's Admin Tech (and many tried very, very hard), <I>none</I> of them applied it "correctly" and <I>that's</I> why it didn't work. Do you see the intrinsic problem with that idea?<BR/><BR/>You certainly may be right, but it merely points out the fact that applying Hubbard's stuff "correctly" and completely is, by real world test, impossible. And that means the tech is fundamentally flawed.Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-24363140045013170592008-09-23T23:48:00.000-07:002008-09-23T23:48:00.000-07:00I've read almost all of your site now... I agree w...I've read almost all of your site now... I agree with about 99% of it. The rest... who cares?<BR/><BR/>Thank you for putting this together. I'd recently been thinking of doing something like this, but you're handling it far better than I would.<BR/><BR/>OK, you make some claims in your last reply. Let's look at them.<BR/><BR/>"If you try very, very hard to apply one policy, you will inevitably find you are violating other policies."<BR/><BR/>Examples? Just a couple would suffice. I mean, I could see how "applying refund policy" kinda counters the policies to "make money, make more money, make others produce so as to make more money...", but really, these aren't contradictory, since upsetting people has clearly been shown to create problems that decrease income. So this straw man I've offered won't really suffice... perhaps you can give a solid example or two?<BR/><BR/>Then you said, "Obviously, the fault lies with Hubbard's Tech itself. If Hubbard's Admin Tech really worked as Hubbard claimed, it would have automatically and 'terminatedly' handled any outnesses. It did not because it can not."<BR/><BR/>That is completely specious. Policy doesn't apply people, people apply policy. Heck, in my perfectly normal non-Scientology job, we have policies. We have IT policies. We have policies on taking personal time off. We have policies on non-disclosure and keeping proprietary information secret. We have policies on when to be at work and what days are holidays. If I don't adhere to these policies, I risk losing my job, but it's not the policies' fault that I didn't perform them, any more than it's the Hubbard policies' fault that so-and-so didn't perform them.<BR/><BR/>Hubbard himself said that policies are intended to make the organization expand, and to hell with any policy which doesn't do that. Intsane Mismanagement glommed onto all the crap policies which inhibit expansion and dropped the decent ones. Why Hubbard felt compelled to include the craptastic policies is a bit of a mystery , but at least we can both agree that he clearly was not perfect. The basic error is this fixed idea that Hubbard was 100% right and couldn't have made a mistake or messed up on a policy.<BR/><BR/>The trick, then, would be to reject that notion and then to figure out which policies are the correct ones and which are not.<BR/><BR/>If we can agree that Miscavige is suppressive (or even if we have to restrict ourselves to non-Scientologese and simply agree that he's a frackin' nutcase), and we can agree that doing the opposite of what the nutcase is doing would a good start, then here's the obvious answer: Drop the policies the current Int Management is working from, and adopt all the ones it has rejected.<BR/><BR/>Maybe it's self-correcting after all. But it's still gotta be applied.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-74696944684495404862008-09-23T22:17:00.000-07:002008-09-23T22:17:00.000-07:00I understand your point about it "not being proper...I understand your point about it "not being properly applied". But I have two key points about that.<BR/><BR/>First, it <I>cannot</I> be "properly applied" because it is self-inconsistent and, well, crazy. If you try very, very hard to apply one policy, you will inevitably find you are violating other policies.<BR/><BR/>Second, the most important part of Hubbard's Admin Tech is that it is <I>self-correcting</I>. Supposedly. What with Org Officers and Qual and Cramming Officers and all that, the Hubbard Organization "automatically corrects" any mis-application of Policy. So why is Hubbard Policy never, ever being applied correctly.<BR/><BR/>Obviously, the fault lies with Hubbard's Tech itself. If Hubbard's Admin Tech really worked as Hubbard claimed, it would have <I>automatically</I> and <I>"terminatedly"</I> handled any outnesses. It did not because it can not.Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-8642084306097525002008-09-23T21:48:00.000-07:002008-09-23T21:48:00.000-07:00I agree that some of the statistics stuff is simpl...I agree that some of the statistics stuff is simply stupid. Isn't the statement "every post has a stat" an absolute? That should be enough to put an end to that insanity, but is it?<BR/><BR/>The janitor would be better off just doing his job than trying to manage a statistic. The only valid question here is, "Was the cleaning done properly?" It's either a yes or a no, not a statistic, and none of Hubbard's opinions on statistics changes the fact that we've only got so many toilets to scrub and garbage cans to empty.<BR/><BR/>Heck, just arguing the point makes me feel cheap and dirty. It should be self-evident.<BR/><BR/>I have to take exception with your suggestion that it's Hubbard's Admin that is the problem with churches, however. It isn't that "In practice, it simply doesn't work." The problem is that, in the church, it's never even really "In practice"! <BR/><BR/>I watched my local mission and church and Int Management fail to apply policy after policy after policy while I was on staff at a mission. It was insane. For example:<BR/><BR/>Reg and ED told me several times that the mission would reimburse me for anything I bought for it (supplies, whatever), completely in violation of financial planning policies.<BR/><BR/>IAS events, reg-type events were invariably these emergency things clearly in violation of HCO PL "Too Little, Too Late", which apparently NO ONE in the church has ever read. Pretty sure its in OEC Vol 2.<BR/><BR/>"We always deliver what we promise." I can't tell you how many times I saw that one violated. So many promises made to me by one and all were lies. It's one thing to protect the church with legal forms. It's another to use those legal forms to make it OK to break promises.<BR/><BR/>The refund policy was routinely violated. Any time a refund request came in... well... naturally, those funds had already been spent, and it was crazy trying to handle it. If the church would just do what the policy says -- refund the money, refuse services in the future -- and leave it at that, no legal threats, no insane routing forms, no ARC-breaky handlings, none of it -- we wouldn't have any of that upset on church lines at all.<BR/><BR/>"Yeah, I went into that Scientology place, but I didn't like it, so I asked for my money back."<BR/><BR/>"Did they pay you back?"<BR/><BR/>"Yeah, they mailed me a check a few days later."<BR/><BR/>That would be the end of it. No upset. Clearly, church management *wants* to have these upsets in the field. Miscavige needs enemies.<BR/><BR/>Oh, but there's more. Hubbard commented negatively on Sea Org stealing staff members from missions and orgs -- but any time a staff member was an upstat, Sea Org would come in and take him away. Orgs were protected from franchises recruiting org staff, but no such protection went the other way. The recruit-from-below behavior is all, of course, designed to ensure that missions and orgs lose their upstats and crash.<BR/><BR/>Hubbard also had pretty explicit policies on not sharing address lists of raw public with other orgs/groups/etc. -- and yet I watched SMI order the missions to give up their address lists (via the InComm computer system), and all the missions just turned up their bellies and complied. I pointed out the policy this violated to the ED. He just shrugged.<BR/><BR/>Heck, there's a policy letter that's part of either Staff Status I or Staff Status II (or, at least, it was...) which clearly points out that seniors who run around demanding that "stats go up" are poor executives. Irony? I'll see if I can locate that issue.<BR/><BR/>Just start reading the policy letters. You can probably just open any OEC volume randomly and find something that the church is doing in violation of whatever policy you happen to open up to.<BR/><BR/>And tech?<BR/><BR/>It's funny how in KSW, Hubbard points out that it's bank that says the group is everything and the indivudal is nothing. I'm guessing every Scientology exec has so many MU's earlier in the document that he's never really read that line.<BR/><BR/>What about "The Hidden Data Line" that Miscavige and the compilations unit have to Hubbard now? How's that working out for everyone? I wonder if that HCOB is even in the Student Hat any more?<BR/><BR/>Sorry. With so many examples on the Internet, I don't need to summarize. You know them.<BR/><BR/>My point is simply this: if you want to fault Hubbard Admin Tech, show me a place where it's actually been genuinely applied first. Then, let's critique it. Until then, what we have is a bunch of crazies running around pretending to be Sceintology administrators, doing everything they can to make sure Scientology fails by focusing insanely on the one thing Hubbard told them explicitly not to: run around screaming to get the stats up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-9444238336806183172008-09-06T11:09:00.000-07:002008-09-06T11:09:00.000-07:00Yes. Time has passed and still no answer to a ver...Yes. Time has passed and still no answer to a very, very simple question.<BR/><BR/>The ultimate, unanswerable request to a Scientologist: Give us some proof!Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.com