Author: Hubbard, L. R.
Document date: 1956, 26 October
Document title: Learning Rates
Document type: lecture transcript
Event: Fifteenth American Advanced Clinical Course
Location: Washington, D. C.
Document ID: 5610C26
Description: Hubbard gives a case history of a little boy and how he plays a childhood game that develops antipathies toward his mother;generalizes this history.
Now, many people, you see, simply by getting into the band of agreement, are way up Tone Scale from where they were. But remember, somebody can come downscale into agreement too.1
So the datum is confirmed. He generated it and it was agreed. Now, and only now, do we enter the field that we could call learning rate, learning lag or education. He’s now learned he was right.
Just for no reason at all he assumed that his mother was a very bad woman. No reason at all, he just assumed this. He didn’t have any casus belli here at all. (Pun. No prenatals, in other words.2) And he’d gone along all right. But one day he decided that his mother was a beast. Oh, she’s a horrible beast. And he went along playing this game of being the sad little orphan, you know, just out of thin air. Kids do this; people do this all the time.
By the way, when people grow up they don’t cease to be kids, you know? It isn’t that they’re immature; they just don’t cease to do these things. They maybe do them privately or more overtly.
And one fine day, why — he’s been postulating this around in the atmosphere all the time, you see, and he’s been kind of making her fall over him — and one fine day, she blows up (and she never did before) and does something dreadful to him, sends him to bed without his supper, tells his father on him, gets him in trouble all the way around the boards and so on, and he says, “Uh-huh, it’s just like I suspected!” Now, he didn’t suspect it at all. It’s postulated. “Just as I postulated,” it’s coming true. And this will follow out with another concatenation of incident.
What’s lying at the bottom of it, however? Well, he postulated it. Now let’s take the reverse of this situation. He postulated that his mother was a good woman and everything was fine and so on. And then the environment went into a wild disagreement with him. She all of a sudden turned around and became a drunkard, started to beat him, threw him out of windows quite regularly, was unfaithful to Father, did all sorts of things and so on. And for the next fifteen years he struggles along trying to convince all of his friends and everybody that she’s really an angel. He does this all the way along the line. He dramatizes this every once in a while, but he’s convinced, really, that she is a very bad woman. Get the idea? Then one day he gives up entirely trying to convince people that she’s a good woman and agrees with the fact she’s a bad one. And that’s that. Now he has another conviction. Only he didn’t generate it. It was exterior to him.
Now, one of the fondest little things that your preclear thinks is that he caused everything everywhere. But he covers this up and advertises to one and all, including himself, that he’s not responsible for anything that ever happened to him. Now, this is quite remarkable because it’s complete reversal, and advertising that he is totally irresponsible, he yet really believes that he basically caused everything.
- Reality in Scientology is defined as agreement. Reality is proportional to amount of emotional charge bled off the case. Ref. HCOB 25 Nov 71 Resistive Cases Former Therapy. ↩
- Prenatals are prenatal engrams, moments of pain and unconsciousness for the unborn child. Dianetics auditing supposedly addresses these traumas in the womb. Hubbard wrote of horrific experiences that his therapists would likely encounter in their patients, particularly incidents of attempted abortions by pregnant mothers, using knitting needles. ↩