Standard Tech is Anything but Standard – A Stable Datum that Isn’t

The tattered banner of “Standard Tech” has been brandished by all sorts of groups inside and outside the COS to determine who shall earn the right to audit pcs.

There are even groups such as the IFA, now known as The Association of Professional Independent Scientologists which are attempting to certify auditors who are delivering standard technology. In this way, the IFA hopes to see that, within itself, the technology is fully preserved, protected and promoted. This group and others would like to preserve some glorious moment in the history of the technology as a historic truth much like ancient flowers and insects were captured in amber.

‘Taint so, McGee. The technology has been a moving target ever since the first processes were tried out and the evolution/devolution did not stop on LRH’s death. The only standard that I can see was what LRH pronounced as standard on the day he said it. He had no trouble labeling as squirrel anything that was contrary to his current statement of what was to be considered standard from here on out.

Paul Adams wrote a light-hearted summation of the complexities surrounding adoption of “standard tech” a few years ago and it is still the sanest view around.

Each time I come back to it, I marvel at how Paul captured the contradictions and complexities in a way that allows us to acknowledge the outpoints and get on with developing a workable technology that fits the situation at hand.


Standard Tech (Hooray!) and Squirrel Tech (boo hiss)

Everybody knows Standard Tech (–Hooray!) is good and Squirrel Tech (–boo hiss) is bad. Right?

Everyone who considers himself a Scientologist wants to be associated with Standard Tech (–Hooray!) as it is good for one’s repute and good for business. I mean, look at all those Hubbard quotes that litter such people’s writings. A Hubbard quote gets instant agreement with that audience.

So you would think Standard Tech (–Hooray!) — SHUT UP! — is easy to define. Well, let’s see.

Hubbard gave many definitions. I don’t want you to think I’m just cherry-picking some that support my point of view and ignore others more prominent that refute it. There are five definitions in the Tech Dictionary. A typical one there is

4. standard tech is not a process or a series of processes. It is following the rules of processing. (HCOB 26 Feb 70).

Sounds great, doesn’t it? But WTF does it mean? What exactly are the rules of processing? Everything in the Tech Volumes and 3000 lectures? –No, no, one might say, don’t be an idiot! There are just a few core basics, like the axioms, the auditors code, auditor plus pc is greater than the bank, things like that. Is there a list anywhere? –Oh no, you have to do the Class VIII course in order to know them.

The Class VIII Course was developed in 1968. Its product per the pack is “A zealot for Standard Tech.” I used to supervise the Class VIII Course at Saint Hill in the early 80s. Anyway, let’s go to the Class VIII course, thanks to the magic of Wikileaks, and toss off some quotes from there. Here are a couple I think are pretty typical:

You say, “Yes, but this PC could sit there for a month without any auditing.” It’s god damn well better he did. If there’re two people who have entirely different opinions on what ought to be done with this case, then either one or the other of those two different people do not know standard tech, because if they knew standard tech they would not have any divergence of opinion.

Standard tech isn’t what I say it is. It’s what works. And what works has already been established. So it isn’t for me to say it’s different. And it isn’t for anybody else to say it’s different either, because we fought for it, and we won it the hard way. Now let’s consolidate it.

It sounds fine when put like that. I’ll use my own wording here, in keeping with the above. LRH had it all worked out by this time. And Standard Tech would be exactly following his instructions up to 1968. Does that sound OK?

Here is one of the purposes of the International Freezone Association, a stalwart of Standard Tech:

IFA Purpose #1: Preserve, protect and promote the exact technology and original workable philosophy of Lafayette Ron Hubbard for future use so it is available for all mankind.

That seems to go along with my definition there. Right?


Let’s zero in on “the exact technology and original workable philosophy of LRH.” At various times over the years Hubbard would say that the technology is all wrapped up. One such time is on this very Class VIII Course. In tape 4 he said, “But Scientology has a very definite body of technical application, which is the only body of technical application in all of the data of Scientology. There are not two ways to do anything in Scientology. In 1966 this was totally summated.”

Oh, OK, so Standard Tech would be exactly following his instructions up to 1966, not 1968. I’m sure you see where this is going.

After 1966 came things like F/N Everything, Running Quad Flows, Dianetic Clear, NED, NOTs, and so on. Should these be considered as Squirrel Tech (–boo hiss) because Standard Tech was all wrapped up in 1966? –Oh no, of course not, don’t be silly, they’re all Standard Tech (Hooray!) too.

All right, so it’s following his instructions exactly, after 1968 too. But Miscavige has brought out the Golden Age of Gack, saying it all follows Hubbard’s instructions, and yet everyone knows it is Squirrel Tech (–boo hiss). –Yeah, but we use 1982 as a cut-off point, as that is when DM got on the line.

I got it now, so Standard Tech would be exactly following his instructions up to 1982 only.

–Yes! Hip Hip—


All right. But in 1950 he described all those marvelous attributes of Clear, including eidetic memory and so forth, and no-one knows anyone who got that out of going Clear. And there’s that stuff about “male clear read” and “female clear read” and a genuine F/N only occurs between TA 2.0 and 3.0, and in Method 4 Word Clearing if you disagree with anything Hubbard said you must have a misunderstood, and. . . . So some of what he wrote is just plain wrong.

–Yes, but everyone knows how to separate out the good bits from the bad bits. You’re just trying to obfuscate the issue.

Hmm. So Standard Tech would be exactly following his good instructions (and ignoring the bad) up to 1982 only?

–Yes. Right. Hooray!

Now, if you poke around online a bit, you’ll see that Hubbard didn’t originate it all. For example, the Berners developed Study Tech over many years and Hubbard just ripped it off, claimed ownership, and got rid of them fast. And Alan C. Walter developed the first correction list. In these cases, Hubbard just pretended he had originated the tech. There are other similar examples of basic tech developed by others, in distinct contrast to what Hubbard said in KSW about being the sole source.

Similarly, there were HCOBs written by others, supposedly with Hubbard’s approval, which were issued in his name. The old tech volumes showed the actual source of these issues, but the current tech volumes don’t.

So now Standard Tech has come down to exactly following the good instructions (and ignoring the bad), whoever was the actual source although it was called Hubbard, up to 1982 only.

It’s a long way from “the exact technology and original workable philosophy of LRH,” isn’t it?

It seems to me that Hubbard originated tech good and bad, and others originated tech good and bad, and what is generally considered “Standard Tech” is pretty much simply the good tech, whatever its source. That being the case, to worship good tech developed prior to 1982 ONLY is very short-sighted, Luddite even. What about all the good stuff developed in the 28 years since? And good stuff buried by Hubbard for various reasons? And good stuff still to be developed in the years to come?

Number of views:321

OldAuditor on March 21, 2012

Freedom Fighter on March 21st, 2012 Edit comment

Here’s a video that contains LRH’s definition of “standard tech” that I find quite workable:

OldAuditor on March 21st, 2012 Edit comment

Mary, that is an excellent presentation of a workable definition of standard tech.
Your examples of applying this definition and your brief description of David Mayo’s
role in Scientology should be part of any independent training activity.

I find the early years of Scientology to be a rich source of of workable technology.


LO on March 22nd, 2012 Edit comment

Think about this definition. It fits the best:

” Standard technology is contained in HCOBs. It actually isn’t contained in any of the books of Dianetics and Scientology. Did you ever realize that? Modern technology is not contained in any of the hardcover books, or any of the other books. It’s contained in HCOBs, Hubbard Communications Office Bulletins, and there they just run off one after the other. And one of these fine days I suppose we will roll up our sleeves and publish them all in consecutive order, all corrected so that nothing ever corrects anything in the bulletins and make it very, very easy. But we will have to put them probably in about seven or eight or ten different volumes, because there are quite a few of them. But that’s standard technology. They’re on white paper printed with red ink. If I haven’t signed it, it isn’t true. And that’s standard technology. — (SHSBC 434 The Classification Chart and Auditing 26 July 66)”


plainoldthetan on March 22nd, 2012 Edit comment

It occurs to me that the fundamental problem with declaring something to be “Standard Tech” is the Church’s insistence that “Standard Tech solves all cases”.

The Church doesn’t even pretend to solve all cases.

If you have a seriously heavy drug history, brain surgery, brain damage, psychiatric treatment, institutionalization, psychiatric drugs, criminal history, or heaven forbid, a history of criticizing Miscabbage, your case is considered “beyond solution”. LRH even says that “Scientology is here to make the able more able” (Scn 8-8008) So if you’ve got no money or no IQ or no personality to start with, your case is also considered unapproachable.

You can also have a service facsimile that people are unhelpable, or unchangeable, or that you’re unhelpable or unchangeable. If an auditor approaches this kind of case thinking that “all I have to do is get him up to Grade 4, he’ll be right as rain”, the auditor is being set up for a big big loss…so that kind of case is also unassailable.

I actually know a guy who has a serfac that “all help should be free”. Whoops! What’s the “Standard Tech handling” for him?

So, waving the “Standard Tech” banner actually excludes a lot of cases. The Church then gets to cherry-pick the population of Earth for the Cadillac cases.

But I guess that’s “standard tech” too. How convenient.


diogenes on March 22nd, 2012 Edit comment

Hello, old friend!

The point you keep missing about KSW is the true nature of LRH’s hat. A great deal of “workable tech” was developed by various people, going back thousands of years on this planet alone. A couple of examples:

For the last 300 years, Zen Buddhism has had an actual grade chart, with their equivalent of expanded grades processes, each one of which is run to EP, and when the EP of the grade is attained, no further process for that grade are run, but the pc goes on to the next grade.

Wilhelm Reich split from Sigmund Freud after determining that it was the charge (mass) in traumatic incidents that was affecting people, rather than the story lines (significance) of those incidents. Freud had faced a fork in the road about this early in his research and made the wrong choice. Reich, when faced with the same fork in the road, made the right choice, and got better results on his patients than Freud did.

LRH would have been a fool not to incorporate these and other discoveries into Scientology. His job was not to reinvent every wheel there is having to do with the mind and spirit. It was to sort through what others had done, determine what really worked and what didn’t, then add his own research to take that further, and declare the end result of that to be “standard tech.” The VFP this made possible was a workable path ordinary people could walk successfully, the finding of which would not necessitate studying all the unworkable confusions mixed in with the nuggets of truth in the work of his predecessors

It may be true that Volney Matheison developed auditing techniques using the e-meter before he ever met LRH or even read DMSMH. It may be true that Alan Walter originated correction lists, that John McMaster invented Power Processing, that Otto Roos did most of the work developing OT 2, and that David Mayo came up with the basic idea of NOTS.

So what?

We don’t have to elevate LRH to some Godlike level to have the common sense to follow him and apply KSW. In my humble opinion, anyone with experience in Scientology who disagrees with KSW has been subjected to bad control by the Church, which was itself out-KSW. The solution is not to throw out KSW. It’s to thrown out the Church’s bad control.


OldAuditor on March 22nd, 2012 Edit comment

KSW is bad control.

Top down, authoritarian control with no provision for feedback from the receiving terminals is by definition bad control.

3 thoughts on “Standard Tech is Anything but Standard – A Stable Datum that Isn’t

  1. Ron Matlock

    Stunningly accurate commentary!

    My admiration for LRH is boundless, but oh dear God do I wish he had never written KSW #1 !

    The seeds of destruction that it planted in the church now seem to be taking root in the independent field.

  2. marildi

    OldAuditor: “Top down, authoritarian control with no provision for feedback from the receiving terminals is by definition bad control.”

    Wasn’t the multiple-viewpoint system supposed to be the provision for feedback?

  3. Interested Party

    After reading this post and all comments, including the video, and after having studied other opinions elsewhere I’ve come to this conclusion:

    “Standard” is an arbitrary.

    What I want both as a PC and as an auditor is workable tech. Things that get the job done with as little time as possible and with as little discomfort as possible.

    Having attention on the standardness of my auditor or auditing is an additive much like the way some people were trained to stick out their pinky finger when holding a tea cup.

    There are workable ways of auditing; auditor presence and ability to create a safe space, metering ability, comm cycle, adherence to auditor’s code are probably the most important.

    My point is just that the word “standard” is totally unnecessary in the first place. Beyond that it adds additional arbitrary ideas that are just dunnage at best.

    I do think there are some points of great value in KSW1. The idea of checking full duplication and understanding of someone who says “X didn’t work” is completely valid. It is incredibly rare to find people who can duplicate and understand instructions and who follow them. It is totally appropriate to ask “What exactly did you do?” I wouldn’t go as far as just assuming the person did it wrong though.

    There is also value in pointing out what doesn’t work if the pointing is specific. “Trying to get gains on a PC who hasn’t slept is a losing proposition” is good to point out. “Trying any method or process not specifically approved by Hubbard or RTC is suppressive” is just insane.

    I’d really appreciate a reference from Diogenes about Zen and grade charts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *