Jump to content

Talk:Science of Survival

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Advocating Genocide?

[edit]

"The reasonable man quite ordinarily overlooks the fact that people from 2.0 down have no traffic with reason and cannot be reasoned with as one would reason with a 3.0. There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the tone scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow." L. Ron Hubbard, from Science of Survival.

I lifted this quote off another website. Can anyone verify whether or not if Hubbard advocated genocide in this book? It would be great if someone could add any details about this to the article.

Hubbard is not advocating genocide in that quote. He is making the point that a reasonable person can misestimate the situation with a person displaying negative emotions, emotions below 2.0. He is advocating that one not be "a reasonable person" and just realize the mental state of the person one is attempting to help. "dispose of them" would mean in this context, if you are not going to help them, just let them go quietly from staff or walk away from them quietly in business or life.Spirit of Man 01:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, if everyone in society was a Scientologist, these people of low tone-scale would be left to die in the streets, because no business would hire them and no charitable organization would help them, because according to Scientology that is the wrong thing to do.
Why don't you just walk away from this quietly. Spirit of Man 01:55, 25
Because unlike the Scientologists, I don't think ignoring people solves problems. I am not so apathetic.

Questions for Wikipediatrix

[edit]

Why have you removed mention of the Emotional Tone Scale which is a vital part of this book?

Why have you removed mention of the Chart of Human Evaluation which is a vital part of this book?

Why have you edited text provided by the Hubbard Dianetics Research Foundation on their letterhead and included by that foundation in early issues of SoS and claimed Hubbard said it or alleged it, when this is not true. Please explain your POV. If you wish to express your personal reservations as to the authorship of the information, please let's discuss it here and hopefully reach a consensus here rather than a delete/revert war. Spirit of Man 02:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original Text of this article

[edit]

Science of Survival: Prediction of Human Behavior (Hardcover) by L. Ron Hubbard


Hardcover: 332 pages Publisher: Bridge Publications, Inc.; Copyright 1951, 1981 Language: English ISBN: 0884040011 First Printing, August 1951 Twentieth Printing, August 1981 Product Dimensions: 1.8 x 6.5 x 9.8 inches Shipping Weight: 2.6 pounds

Comprehensive reference work describing the application of Dianetics. Contains an Introduction with definitive test results from 1950 as published by the staff of the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation. (See below) Presents the Chart of Human Evaluation. Contains detail descriptions of each of the columns of the Chart of Human Evaluation. Excellent description of the emotional tone scale. Basic textbook for the prediction of human behavior.

Review: "The most important book man has." BB

Overview of Tests and Test Results from the Introduction.

In 1950 the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation agreed to a definitive test of claims demanded by the psychological community. They insisted Dianetics "validate" three basic claims using psychology's strictest psychrometric protocols, including their professional level examiners and their written test procedures. The claims were; increased IQ, the relief of psychoses, and the relief of psychosomatic illnesses.

The tests used were; the Minnesota Multiphasic Test and the Wechsler-Bellevue, "Form B".

The examining psychometrists were Gordon Southon, Peggy Southon and Dalmyra Ibanez, Ph.D., Ed.D. and their signatures were affixed to each bank of tests and witnessed. These psychometrists were registered professional personnel whose honesty and standing in the field of psychology was above question.

Before and after tests were required. 88 students were selected. (Straight off the street with no previous knowledge of Dianetics.) One month of training on Dianetics. Each student received an average of 40 hours of Dianetics from other students.

All three claims were validated by these tests and these psychometrists.

Psychology has never responded with similar demonstrations of its own claims.

Dianetics remains the only validated science of the mind. It's claim to be man's most advanced science of the mind has been validated. LLH --207.69.139.7 16:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

Some of the article appears biased towards Dianetics. Can the last two sentences be validated using commonly-accepted authoritative third-party references?

The second-last paragraph does not adequately clarify the "claims" psychology is making, nor does it detail either a request from an expert in some other discipline for any sort of demonstration or an attempt by a group of psychologists to respond to such a request.

-- MatthewDBA 23:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MathewDBA, the last two lines are a comment. The relevant claims of psychology of the time period were that IQ could not be changed, their psychological profiles could not be changed as they were believed to have physiological origins, and that psychosomatic ills accounted for 70 percent of mans ills an could not be treated. Many illnesses were legislated against so that it was and is illegal to treat them. I felt the lines were important, but if you, as administrator, feel they are the reason for your Neutrality flag, I will remove them. --Spirit of Man 23:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of Man:
Thanks for the compliment, but I'm not an administrator. I do, however, have some ideas about your responses.
Commentary is useful on your talk page, or perhaps on the article's talk page; however, it doesn't belong in the article itself. :The idea of this or any encyclopedia is to publish information which is not only correct but verifiable through independent :sources not related to you (as author of the article). I'd move those sentences to this discussion page.

MatthewDBA, I removed the lines you mentioned from the Article and they already exist here. Will you remove your POV dispute from the Article? --Spirit of Man 03:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, do you have third-party documentation on the specific claims you cite? (In other words, do you have any quotes from :journals or psychological writings of the time which actually make those claims?) Providing that sort of documentation would help :both to fill out the article and to establish the verifiability of your claims.

This Article is just about the book and the tests and test results published by the foundation 55 years ago. According to the current Wiki Dianetics Article there were no tests (this is false), let alone definitive tests proving Dianetic results scientifically. He then goes on to claim the psychological community says the subject is not a science because there have been no tests. I have informed the author of this correct data and he is refusing to correct the article. I understand the dispute is with suitable scientific tests, fairly admininistered proving the claims of Dianetics, not with the claims of psychology. In fact Dianetics did provide such tests, the subject was validated per the protocols and criteria of their professional psychrometrists. This man has to ignore the importance of these tests to maintain his super critical point of view instead of a neutral pov. Do you understand what these test results mean? --Spirit of Man 03:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link to a New York Times article footnoted the Wiki Dianetics Article that gives you a third party reference; [Freeman, Lucy: "Psychologists act against Dianetics", New York Times, September 9, 1950].

You can get a copy on the web by Googling that citation, but here is the essence of it:

[The association stated that "in view of the sweeping generalizations and claims regarding psychology and psychotherapy made by L. Ron Hubbard in his recent book, "Dianetics," the American Psychological Association adopts the following resolution: "While suspending judgment concerning the eventual validity of the claims made by the author of 'Dianetics,' the association calls attention to the fact that these claims are not supported by empirical evidence of the sort required for the establishment of scientific generalizations. In the public interest, the association, in the absence of such evidence, recommends to its members that the use of the techniques peculiar to Dianetics be limited to scientific investigations designed to test the validity of its claims."] --Spirit of Man 04:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm particularly curious about your claim that "illnesses were legislated against". Do you have any specific illnesses in mind?
-- MatthewDBA 00:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand there were or are 25 such illnesses in California. I would have to look them up to say specifics, but that information is not relevent to this Article. --Spirit of Man 03:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! Some more comments:
  1. Don't forget -- this is Wikipedia. Anyone who wishes to edit an article, and who feels they have pertinent information, may do so. If you feel the current article on Dianetics is incomplete or in error by not discussing these tests, then probably the most appropriate thing to do is to edit that article. If the original author of the article wants to dispute your edit, you and he/she can discuss it on the talk page for that article; if there's an unresolvable problem, you can refer the matter to an administrator.
  2. Since you mention the claim of illnesses legislated against, it's probably not irrelevant to list them, or at least mention a few of them, with some back-up references.
  3. Again, if you're trying to limit your discussion simply to the tests, and the book mentioning them, I'd really strongly suggest merging this information into the current article. Don't be afraid to edit another article -- there's nothing stopping you from improving someone else's discussion, especially if it's to introduce a neutral point of view!
I'm going to remove the POV note, but I'm going to put up a "merge" tag, if that's all right. There are a good number of people who watch for articles which might be merged, and this would give a number of people a chance to comment. I think you're doing a really good job of improving this article; I hope you understand that I'm only intending to offer suggestions on how to improve it even more. -- MatthewDBA 12:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MatthewDBA, thank you. --Spirit of Man 15:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's shaping up well. I'm reconsidering my merge suggestion. -- MatthewDBA 20:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MatthewDBA, I have tried to link to the Dianetics article, but that hasn't been going well with the edits there. I am discussing with editors there the acceptance of these test results to satisfy a claim of "no empirical test results have ever been presented". When we get past that issue we can look at the merge idea again. Thanks for the interest. Spirit of Man 22:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merger ?

[edit]
  • No. Is this where we vote on a merger? SoS has been printed at least 21 times, is the single source about "tone level" which is a stand alone technology anyone can understand without other Scientology technical knowledge. Terryeo 18:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The Dianetics article is already quite long, and I don't mind this book having its own article. --Davidstrauss 21:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This book is no more worthy of merger than any of Hubbard's other books, many of which have (and deserve) their own pages. Since the merge-suggestion tag has been on the article since December, and since the person who put it there didn't even make a comment here about it when they did so, I'm removing it. wikipediatrix 19:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been an advocate of fewer Scientology articles. There are way too many relative to its real importance. Has any publication outside of Scientology discussed this book? I am not sure what the standards for notability of books are, but I think a book has to be mentioned or reviewed in the mainstream to be notable. There is already an article on the tone scale where this book could be mentioned in passing if that is its importance. Steve Dufour 07:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Science of Survival. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Science of Survival. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Science_of_Survival&oldid=1205222068"