Talk:Tone scale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics.
See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tone scale article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] silly guy

Now that I understand how to view historys I see that user at IP address 208.63.153.135 came in here, posted this "command over others" stuff, put 2 anti-scn links and fled. heh. This gets interesting when you know how to view who did what.

Added a note regarding the Scientologist's belief that "Tone 40" gives a Scientologist the ability to command others (and objects) through sheer force of will.

Oh this is really amusing guys, really. lol Sheer force of will, whew ! What will they think of next? But as a small point of information, don't you think it would be appropiate to tell what the tone scale is (a scale of emotion) before spelling out its uses in auditing? Because if a person can understand that the (any emotion here) they are feeling has an emotion just below and just above it, and they are going to go to one of those emotions or the other when they leave their present emotion, then a person might grasp the use of it.Terryeo 01:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/xenu/xenu-05.html http://freezoneamerica.org/Clearbird/guide2004/book/22Objectives.htm

Hello to those two posted links, why don't you sign your postings on this page when you post in reply to someone?  :) Terryeo 20:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marbahlarbs

This article is really ugly and hard to read. Some formatting, anyone? I'll probably get to it later. Could use some graphics, sections, etc... /twocents Marbahlarbs 06:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll agree it hardly makes sense. However, the tiny glimmer of light comes from the external like to Scientology's Illistrated Tone Scale in Full, which is light, pleasent and easy to read :) Terryeo 01:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
opps, sorry. "external link" to Scientology's Tone Scale page, that's a nice page, heh ! Terryeo 20:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm going to do major deletes unless

Unless someone talks here. Specifically the article quotes "Science of Survival" (I have copies of that book) and says it states some things on page 131, etc. Well, I have two editions of that book. Neither states anything remotely like that. What edition of that book (there were 4 altogether) is being used for those ugly quotes? Cite it or lose it, whomever posted that stuff. I'm going to delete everything in the article which I know to be untrue and is not cited. If you have a published fact and you cite the source of your fact you will have to include the edition of Science of Survival you got it from too. My copies of SoS do not contain the text which the article quotes. Terryeo 20:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense

"However, criminals are routinely jailed by society, and criminals definitely meet the definitions of lower toned people." Yes, criminals meet the made-up definition of "lower toned people". However, they are jailed because they are criminals, having committed crimes, not because they are "lower toned people". The flawed syllogism here is:

  • People who commit crimes are lower-toned people.
  • People who commit crimes are jailed.
  • Therefore it is right to jail lower-toned people for being lower-toned people.

Now let's substitute something for "lower-toned people":

  • People who commit crimes are carbon-based life forms.
  • People who commit crimes are jailed.
  • Therefore it is right to jail carbon-based life forms for being carbon-based life forms.

Sorry, this is only good for a laugh, not for the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cut quote here for discussion

this quote appeared in the article:

and "There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale, neither of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. [...] The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow. Adders are safe bedmates compared to people on the lower bands of the tone scale." (Science of Survival, p. 157)

In looking through my copies of Science of Survival I can't find it, though I did find the other partial quote of the article on page 131 as the article specifies. If anyone can find that quote in their copy of Science of Survival, please speak up. There were at least 3 different editions of SoS and I only have 2 so it is possible it was stated. I place it here for discussion and citation as specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability Terryeo 06:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing this Series Template from across the Scientology related pages. This is not correct usage of Series Templates per the guidelines. They were set up to show the history of countries and were different articles form a sequential series. This is not the case with the Scientology pages, which are random pages on different topics – not a sequence of any kind. Wiki’s definition of a series is: “In a general sense, a series is a related set of things that occur one after the other (in a succession) or are otherwise connected one after the other (in a sequence).” Nuview, 15:10, 10 January 2006 (PST)

hahahahah, and there is Feldspar, scratching in the dirt, putting the quote "back in place" to maintain a "NPOV" lololololol. Terryeo 05:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
And there is Terryeo, who admits that he did not possess or obtain the necessary resources to dispute that the quote was correct and properly cited but removed it anyways. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you will talk about it Feldspar. If the information about how to treat people at the bottom of the tone scale is presented within the context which Hubbard presents it, I don't have a problem with it being presented. But if taken out of context and quoted, it can sound like Hubbard implies large segments of society should be executed. Well, that isn't the case. Hubbard was saying, "you can't trust people like that" he was saying "that portion of the society is criminal" and he was saying, "those people will stab you in the back at first opportunity". Its perfectly good with me the quote be used in a context that makes clear what Hubbard was saying. Terryeo 10:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
What context do you propose should be added to clarify the meaning? You say "it can sound like Hubbard implies large segments of society should be executed." Well, the only part of that which isn't found directly in this quote is the "large", and since elsewhere Hubbard estimates the number of "true suppressives", the "truly dangerous", at 2.5% of the population, the "large" doesn't seem inaccurate.
I understand that you're saying what Hubbard meant is that the truly dangerous people of society are the ones who should be "dispose[d] of ... quietly and without sorrow." I don't have any objections to it being made clear that those who have complete faith in Hubbard's tone scale think that disposing of "people below 2.0" and disposing of "the truly dangerous people" are one and the same thing; however, it has to be kept clear that they are not the same thing to anyone who doesn't think Hubbard's tone scale perfectly identifies those who are truly dangerous, and never has any false positives or false negatives. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I am glad you understand it was Hubbard's estimation that only 2.5 percent are truely dangerous. I think too that you understand he is saying that those persons who comprise the small percentage are "down-tone" persons who view the world as being hostile and out to get them. I understand him to be saying, "you can't trust such people" rather than, "if possible, execute such people!". Out of context it sounds like he is purposing that society cure itself by executing people. In context (my opinion) he is presenting the idea that a small percentage of people produce most of society problems. Terryeo 10:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I am including the rest of the quotes from Science of Survival, from 2001 edition. Accurate quoting gives reliability. --Andrew eagles 12:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV template

"For situations where you or other editors disagree on NPOV status, or need to reach consensus on neutrality, instead use the neutrality dispute template, and explain the reasons on the talk page." It is clear, because I am the other editor of this article, that what you are guided to do, Feldspar, is to attempt to reach consensus, rather than place the NPOV template on the talk page. Therefore, I am removing the template and attempting to get into communication with you about the subject. Hello? Terryeo 10:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What portion of the article seems non-neutral to you? It stood for a long time, I clarified that which was poorly presented without removing or even touching the critical protions. How did that change the neutrality of the article to draw your attention to its neutrality?Terryeo 10:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it funny how you finally read the directions at Wikipedia:POV check? When did that become convenient for you? -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually Feldspar, I invited discussion on the subject of the neutrality. (just above). I have spelled out my reasoning, both here where it belongs and where you made a public issue of it at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scientology#NPOV_watch. I see you not only refuse to discuss the neutrality of this article, Tone Scale here, but in addition are using an attempt at sarcasm to communicate something about another article, eleswhere. Perhaps, in the future, you would confine yourself to the stated policies of Wikipedia:List_of_policies which states:
  • "Resolving disputes

The first step to resolving any dispute is to talk to those who disagree with you. If that fails, there are more structured forms of discussion available." Why don't you try that, Feldspar? Just talk on the discussion pages of the articles toward getting your POV put in and the other guy's POV removed ? Terryeo 17:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing some "cites needed"

I'm removing the "cite needed" tags from the latter two bulleted criticisms. While it would be nice to attribute such criticisms to known bodies, they don't need citations because they're logical arguments. Logical arguments don't rely on appeal to authority to be correct, and we shouldn't present them as such. It's also a violation of NPOV that the introduction and details sections have neither cites nor {cite needed} tags, and yet the criticism section has one of the two on every statement. --Davidstrauss 17:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

the following three statements from that section are uncited. The introduction to these criticism is the weasel worded, "critics say". well, what critics? where is that published? Which sort of critics? are the "critics" persons of known repute or is it OR on the part of an editor?

  • "The tone scale is said to be too simplistic and arbitrary to evaluate people."
    No mention is made of "evaluating people" anywhere in the article toward any action against people. This statement is the first statement about any evaluation at all and it implies some evaluation is somehow important, but too simplistic to be of value. It both presents an arguement without a preposition and criticizes the arguement.Terryeo 02:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    You'll notice that I didn't remove the "cite needed" tag on this one, so I don't see why you're arguing with me on it. --Davidstrauss 05:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "As sympathy (more exactly, a chronic demand for sympathy) is defined at a low point on the tone scale, critics say the result is that Scientologists are conditioned to show no sympathy to anyone."
    No mention has been made at this point of Scientologists believing a word of this, nor of their being "conditioned" yet this statement presupposes that Scientologists are "conditioned", and "conditioned" in a way that prevents them from humanly interacting with some people. That isn't the use of the tone scale, its use is to better understand that some people need some sympathy in order to be communicated with, and to provide prediction of how to best communicate with such people.Terryeo 02:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    I'm sure you'll agree that one of Scientology's goals is moving people up the tone scale. If sympathy is defined as a low point on the scale--alongside other, clearly undesirable traits--moving up the scale would leave behind sympathy. So, if the CoS wants to move people up the scale, they logically want them to leave behind sympathy. --Davidstrauss 05:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    David, sympathy is located just over half-way up the tone scale, this is not 'a low point'. --Andrew eagles 13:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    Below "Despair", "Terror", and "Numb" is not 'a low point'? Get real. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    Antaeus, in a scale of 80 increments, anything above half-way is not a 'low point', this is obvious. You want to say it is a 'low point' because you do not understand the tone scale, there are 28 more delineated levels below sympathy which you should give careful consideration before commenting further. Until you can prove otherwise, which is impossible, the description 'low point' applied to sympathy is factually incorrect and I needs to be corrected in the article. Thanks.--Andrew eagles 23:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    In a scale that including "Despair", "Terror", and "Numb", anything below them has been placed at what any mainstream observer would consider to be a low point. It doesn't matter if Hubbard divided the scale into 80 increments of which 40 are above zero and 40 are below or if he divided it into 1020 of which two were above zero and all the rest below. We don't say that .9 kelvins is not at a "low point" on its scale just because it's above 0 kelvins. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Denying rights to people considered to be lower on the tone scale is an arbitrary violation of human rights."
    that statement, like its preceeding paragraph, take Hubbard's words completely out of the context they are within. Hubbard is presenting that people in those tones are not people with whom you can productively argue nor trust. To illistrate his communication he tells you the only manner you could communicate with such people. Terryeo 02:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Well, Hubbard clearly supported denying rights to people low on the tone scale (see Homosexuality and Scientology). The statement only speaks to the nature of such an idea, that such an idea would support arbitrary violation of human rights. --Davidstrauss 05:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarifying sympathy in context of tone scale

I am adding a para to clarify the meaning of sympathy in context of the tone scale. This has been misunderstood by some editors and has lead to factually incorrect entries to the article. --Andrew eagles 13:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Antonio - The para on understanding levels in context doesn't belong in the 'Criticism' section of the article do not move this again, instead use this discussion page like everyone else. Describing 'sympathy' as low on the tone scale is factually incorrect as it lies above 0.0 the mid-point, this needs to be corrected. --Andrew eagles 20:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Uh, hello, we've already been through this before, on the discussion page -- although if you think you're talking to someone named "Antonio" then perhaps that explains something about your ability to follow a conversation. (Hmmmm... Terryeo renders Povmec as "Pomec" and "Potomec" and 'Andrew eagles' renders Antaeus as "Antonio". Wonder what a CheckUser would turn up...) By mainstream interpretations, "sympathy" is indeed very low on the tone scale; it is below "Despair", "Terror" and "Numb". It is the fact that it is so low that causes it to be a point of criticism, which is why there was an existing paragraph on it. Your purported paragraph on "understanding levels in context" was in fact not about understanding levels in context but rather a response specifically to the criticism regarding the low point at which "Sympathy" appears on the scale; this is why it was incorporated into the existing paragraph. Since it was a partial rebuttal to the criticism, it was of some value, however, it is conventional to allow an argument to be made, and then rebutt it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Antaeus, I apologise for getting your name wrong, it was not intentional. On a positive note, I have a friend called Antonio and I think I momentarily mistook you for him. The previous discussion was about something else which is why I started a new discussion to make it clear that sympathy (.9) is factually not a low-point in the context of a scale that runs from +40 to -40. Your sarcasm toward myself and Terryeo does little to recommend your advice, just try to stay objective and you'll learn something here. The para on defining the individual levels in context of the scale is needed to avoid misunderstandings that can arise from considering only a portion of the whole scale. This was not in response to criticism but rather an addition to the article, as such is does not belong under criticism. Thanks. --Andrew eagles 00:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Frequently people in Scientology are referred to as "low toned" when they are below 2 on the tone scale. Here is a declaration with an example of this: Declaration of Tara Hattaway. Here is another example at Understanding Scientology by Margerie Wakefield. See also, Science of Survival, part one, page 131, first and second paragraphs, where LRH talks about people that are 1.1 on the tone scale as being "low toned". See also Science of Survival, part one, page 157, second paragraph, which clearly illustrate his views regarding "low-toned" individuals. "At 1.1 on the tone scale we enter the area of the most vicious reversal of the second dynamic. Here we have promiscuity, perversion, sadism, and irregular practices." from Science of Survival Book One, Chapt. 18, at pg. 116. Also check out the Tech Dictionary from Scientology for the phrase "Only One", which says "Just above zero on the tone scale. An individual must have no effect on self and total effect on everything and everybody else. .... You can look at any person who is being dishonest or who is upsetting his environment or who is getting people into trouble all the time. You could look at that person and the actuality is he has no reality on his fellow man. He doesn't know they live. That's a very low-toned thing we call "only one." " Vivaldi 05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, one reason why people are called "low toned" at .9 is because of the Illustrated Tone Scale in Full, which clearly denotes that "Sympathy" is on the low side of the tone scale and even has a graphic demonstrating that fact. You might also notice that the Scientology Handbook (that is referenced) says that the average tone of an individual is 2.8. So clearly someone at .9 is considerably lower than average and thus "low-toned". Vivaldi 07:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This section is a lot of “critic opinion.” Complete opinion and hearsay. I am removing it as it has no place in this article. Streamlight 13:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that refreshing break from reality. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The ultimate goal of Scientology

Discussion on the following entry; 'The ultimate goal of Scientology is claimed to be "a free being".' I have not seen this 'ultimate goal' stated in any original reference other than this article. The aims of Scientology are clearly stated elsewhere. But nowhere have I seen original reference to 'The ultimate goal of Scientology'. This sentence is misleading, and if it cannot be substantiated by original reference should be removed from the article. --Andrew eagles 20:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, and yet interestingly, you never had any objection before to stating that that was the ultimate goal of Scientology; up until now, in fact, you kept changing it to "The ultimate goal of Scientology is a free being", trying to remove anything that would make a distinction between this being claimed to be the ultimate goal and Wikipedia actually stating as fact that it is the ultimate goal. [1], [2], [3] So how does one go from "this is so completely true that I am entitled to remove any attempts to qualify it" to "I've never seen this anywhere else; it should be removed from the article"?
I stand corrected. Factually, I should have removed 'the ultimate' as I have no reference to back this up. Somewhere I have an original reference saying that free beings is a goal of Scientology, I'll find this and post it here for inclusion in the article. Question: If Brazil said their goal is to win the World Cup, would this be an alleged goal? Thanks.--Andrew eagles 00:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
It goes without saying that a sports team's goal is to win. It does not go without saying what the true goal is of a multi-faceted, mysterious and controversial organization such as the Church of Scientology. Sports teams do not have secret teachings. Scientology does. wikipediatrix 00:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Andrew -- What happens to a person when one crosses the Bridge to Total Freedom(tm)? Does Scientology teach that individuals should strive to cross the Bridge(tm)? Vivaldi 05:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
When a person crosses the bridge the aliens come and vaporize his body, freeing is eternal soul to join them in estatic bliss forever ! HEH ! Sorry, I just had to do one like that. Terryeo 04:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Scientology's statement of the Church's goal is here. The term, "Rehabilitation of the human spirit" is sometimes used as an expression of that goal. Before you take your first step on the Bridge, you do anything you want to. After you take your last step, you do likewise do anything you want to. The Church says you'll have more freedom after the last step than before you took the first step. Terryeo 04:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Are Scientologists ever encouraged to get on or across the Bridge(tm)? Do Scientologist salespersons or auditors ever tell people the benefits of crossing the Bridge(tm)? Do auditors or course supervisors advise people that are on the Bridge(tm) what they should do next after completing a course? Vivaldi (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Surely just pointing out the complete lack of evidence suggesting the tone scale is accurate should be enough criticism. Also, is a citation really needed for the first point of criticism? It's painfully obvious from the article that the tone scale is completely arbitrary. I would have thought it made more sense for someone to cite research that demonstrates it works, unless wikipedia has to present every unproven idea as fact. Calling something obviously rubbish is indeed NPOV if there is absolutely no evidence even suggesting that it's true. Neutral does not mean gullible. Dave420 17:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of like rap music. Some people reject it out of hand as not being music at all. On the other hand its fans can compare one artist or one song to another and say why one is better than the other. Yet both are lumped together under the word "criticism". Just a thought. Steve Dufour 16:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why "tone"?

I just checked my dictionary and it said the word "tone" had many meanings as a noun and a few as a verb, but none were listed as an adjective. "Tonal" however is an adjective meaning "of a tone or tonality". Shouldn't the scale be called the "Tonal Scale"? Or if not that then the "Scale of Tones"? Steve Dufour 16:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hubbard is your correct terminal for that question, not this talk page. AndroidCat 18:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
It might be a little difficult to get in touch with him.  :-) Steve Dufour 19:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/n/Talk%7ETone_scale_4822.html"