DISCLAIMER: This site is not connected to or endorsed by the Church of Scientology(TM). Dianetics(TM), Scientology, OT(TM), E-Meter(TM), NED(TM), NOTs(TM) and Solo NOTs(TM)are trademarks and service marks reportedly owned by Religious Technology Center, and permission was not sought for their fair use here.

"Intelligence" can be defined as the ability to recognize differences, similarities and identities.

There are different groups and individuals, both in the CofS and in the FZ, saying that the tech as delivered in one place is more standard than another. This has lead to friction. It has never been clearly laid out exactly what "Standard" means, except in terms of glib phrases. These sound good, and might get you through a star-rate checkout, but don't help in trying to understand how one flavor of FZ tech differs from another, or even how CofS tech measures up.

Here is a list of "features" that could be used as a checklist to differentiate among the different flavors of tech available in the FZ and in the CofS.

As an example, those who have not been doing CBR tech might think of the RO people as a bunch of weirdos. But on inspection, it could be that the two might have 95% of their points of standard tech in common, and only differ on 5%, and that relatively small percentage is the cause of all the contention.

It could be that a new group, "Ronology", claims to be an offshoot of standard LRH tech, but a closer inspection shows that Ronologists only share 43% of the points in common with the guys who consider themselves the most standard.

This list can also be used to rate the current C of S technical standards against well-known LRH materials.

It could also be used by an individual practitioner to see how "on-source" he is, and where he could take actions to improve his situation.

"Standard" is here empirically defined as "as is familiar to many from observing what was generally considered as LRH standard in the C of S when they were there." This seems to be a roughly workable definition, even if not really acceptable to a purist.

The Conservative Standard Tech (CST) person tends to believe the tech as developed by Ron needs no improvement, and no further research is needed for levels below OT VIII. The CST person cherishes the existing technology and defends it against all attempted change. This category of person is found throughout the CofS and the FZ alike.

The Progressive Standard Tech (PST) person cherishes the tech developed by Ron, but tends to consider it as a solid foundation for further research to get nearer to the perfect technology envisioned in the Safeguarding Technology PL. In that PL, Ron says that Scientology is not a perfect system, but it is a workable system, and should be safeguarded as such.

Both types of Standard Tech person are needed. A CofS person making his first tentative reach into the FZ would find much more reality in a CST group than a PST group. A CST person is happy with the tech that he has, and doesn't really see any need for any further research. CST people are needed to preserve that workable tech, so it doesn't get degraded or even disappear. On the other hand, a PST person tends to accept the general workability of the tech used by the CST person, but is reaching for something more, is seeking to push the envelope. All great progress in science is made by individuals doing further research, standing on the shoulders of the giants who went before.

There does not have to be friction between the two. Both the Conservative Standard Tech person and the Progressive Standard Tech person can peacefully co-exist. One does not have to fully agree with the views of another in order to have harmony. Religious tolerance and freedom of speech are cornerstones of a civilized society, part of granting beingness to another. It is somewhat hypocritical to preach religious tolerance, but not to practise it with one's fellow practitioner just because one does not agree fully with the other.

This is still a work in progress. Each answer box contains two answers. The first one is for how the point is generally considered theoretically by educated people in that group, the second is for how it generally works out in practise for the typical practitioner. As an example, almost all Standard Tech auditors, both Conservative and Progressive, would welcome the use of a separate Examiner. In practise, almost no FZ auditors have one available.

E.g. (abbreviation of Latin exemplii gratia) introduces an example.
I.e. (abbreviation of Latin id est: which means literally "that is", but is better translated as "I'll explain") introduces an explanation of what comes before.

NA for Not Applicable means the question does not apply at all in the field concerned.
Yes means definitely yes or mostly yes.
No means definitely no or mostly no.
- means equivocal, neither yes nor no.
? means unknown. This is different to equivocal.

Here is a comparison among:

Column 1: The CofS generally in the 1970s
Column 2: The CofS generally now (2004)
Column 3: A hypothetical "typical" FZ Conservative Standard Tech practitioner, who does all training and processing available in the FZ
Column 4: Robert Ducharme, a Progressive Standard Tech practitioner, auditing (no training) in his usual manner
Column 5: Ron's Orgs
Column 6: PEAT from Zivorad Slavinsky
Column 7: Idenics
Column 8: TROM
Column 9: Pilot's Self-Clearing
Column 10: TIR (Traumatic Incident Reduction, basically reworded Dn)
Column 11: Meta-Psychology (Basically reworded Scn)
Column 12: TBA (To Be Assigned)

Some points are more important than others points. Each point has been assigned a "weighting factor". The factors used are 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, with the default weight being 3.

Neither the questions nor the answers are finalized. Columns 6 through 11 are entirely question marks, for instance, and more columns could be added. But it is a start.

DISCLAIMER: This site is not connected to or endorsed by the Church of Scientology™. Dianetics™, Scientology, OT™, E-Meter™, NED™, NOTs™ and Solo NOTs™ are trademarks and service marks reportedly owned by Religious Technology Center, and permission was not sought for their fair use here.