I've noticed a couple of disturbing tendencies among Scientologists.

The first could be "quotingness". Ron obviously looked askance at people who walked around telling people how to audit or pretending to quote him on how to audit when they had no idea. The idea of "verbal tech" arose from this, and it became a crime, under certain circumstances, to do such things. Over time, this became so generalized that even describing the ARC Triangle to someone became an exercise in, "what's the reference?". Rather silly. In fact, both the Tech and Admin Dictionaries include almost nothing but quotes. And they're damn hard to read a lot of the time, because of it.

This remembering the source of each and every piece of Scientology one might utter, and preferrably being able to recite the exact quote became a solid practice over a number of years. It turned those with good memories into giants among men, whether they understood any of what they were referring to or not. Any person who could lay their hands on the exact source of something was considered to know much more than the person listening.

This was actually a sad development. A person who can actually apply the Tech of Scientology is worth a thousand who can quote where it came from. If I'm in session with an auditor who can audit like the wind and whose sessions just sail off on calm waters every time, but can't remember when he first heard about "Listing and Nulling", I'm fine with it. On the other hand, if the guy can quote and reference everything he's ever read in Scientology, but can't get through rudiments without ARCXing me, we've got a problem.

Now, if you're an intern supervisor, or a Qual Librarian, the ability to quote and refer to things, chapter and verse, is a highly valuable skill. On the other hand, if you're delivering a PE Course and explaining ARC, KRC, the Chart of Human Evaluation and the like, the skill is more or less useless.

In any case, it appears as though the ability to cite the source of a datum has become a more important skill than being able to operate with and apply the data. I personally suspect people who can readily cite quotes and do so with regularity. I become very interested in whether they can actually apply what they know. But that's just me.

(By the way, I am not discouraging the practice of citing things. I'm throwing shade on the idea that people who do it are to be lionized.)

The second disturbing tendency is to make two assumptions, both false:

1. If LRH said it, it's true.
2. If LRH didn't say it, it's not true.

You may have met people who act this way. But neither one of these things is valid.

"If LRH said it, it's true." Ron never ever ever insisted on this. In fact, quite the opposite. Ron expected you to look around and see that what he said was true for you or not. And he never insisted that you find it to be true. (I won't cite where he says this.) Ron expected you to observe and think for yourself. Of course, if you were going to determine the truth of something, he did expect you to actually observe in order to determine the facts. But he never insisted on you agreeing with him.

More insidious is this one: "If LRH didn't say it, it isn't true." That's just horse hockey of the first rank. Where anyone got this, I don't know. You probably won't hear anyone say this. But I've had people say things to me that clearly indicated this is the way they think. They're not sure what to think if LRH didn't mention it somewhere.

I don't recall LRH ever mentioning that the sun rises in the east. But I'm pretty sure that if I get up in the morning, the sun will be coming up over the horizon in the east. Ron also never mentioned that my car would start up when I turned the key. But in general, that's what happens.

Look, I use "What Would LRH Do" as my guiding light, just like a lot of other "with LRH" Scientologists. But when I'm faced with something in life that I don't have the answer to, I rely on my past observations, and in lieu of that, I try to find a way to apply Scientology data to it. If I still can't decide, I flip a coin. I've been in Scientology 42 years now, and I figure if I can't think with all the stuff I've learned I need to start restudying stuff.

In today's fractured Field, these tendencies have probably slipped away. I don't know, because I avoid a significant fraction of the Field who oppose LRH or think they have a better idea. But among those of us who still follow the "LRH way", it is a phenomenon worth noticing.

In a sort of related phenomenon, there are people who can't seem to think a thought unless LRH talked about something related to it. You ask them a question about something in life, and they start looking for an answer in the only body of wisdom they know, Scientology. Sometimes the answer you get is complete gibberish which has nothing really to do with the Scientology idea they just came out with. "How come my dishwasher takes so long to wash its load?" "Well, the ARC triangle...." Airy fairy and theety weety types do this a lot. It's all magic or something. Fact is, they wouldn't know a gear from a bird feather. But they remember this one concept of Scientology which supposedly explains everything. Sometimes instead you get the thousand yard stare. They're desperately trying to find an LRH datum which covers this and can't. And they're so slightly educated in Scientology and everything else that they just sort of sit there and spin.

Now, Scientology is a wide-ranging philosophy. You could link it or part of it to almost anything which happens in life. The link might be pretty tenuous, but something in Scientology might still apply. Even to the art of motorcycle maintenance, for example. But it's true that there is room in life for a lot of things not covered by Scientology. In that case, it's up to you to observe and act with all the wisdom you can muster.

But as regards human behavior, it is almost always applicable. I have on occasions seen wog concepts creep into my thinking about humans. For example, the idea of "ego", which is part of Freudian psychology, and which is a badly conceived and false idea. When I see such things creep in, I stop and consider what Scientology concepts might cover the circumstances instead. In the case of "ego", a better concept is the idea of a self-importance button, which LRH talks about. I go on the assumption that there is nothing in the behavior and attitudes of humans which isn't covered in Scientology. I've found this to be true, and it only remains to apply that datum.

So all these phenomena are things to avoid. Instead, learn all you can in Scientology, as in "make it your data". And approach the world boldly. And for God's sake, stop worrying so much about where each little datum you know is quoted. Wisdom belongs to everyone, and if it belongs to you, then there's no need to remember where and when someone imparted it to you. (Though giving credit to LRH is always the respectful thing to do, if he imparted the wisdom to you.)