I had long realised that almost everyone went by 20+ words a page they misunderstood, so what was important was that at the end of the course they could do what they were supposed to, not the silly rule that they had "no mu's".
Paul
I think that's a realisation that everyone had to have at some point. There was an element of fanaticism, I felt, around the subject of MUs. The idea that it was impossible to have understood the bulletins, simply because you didn't know what LRH:AB:cd:ef meant seemed a bit ridiculous. I remember spending over an hour trying to deal with an MU on a taped lecture caused by not being able to clearly hear what Hubbard was saying. The word in question SOUNDED (to me at least) like "over-larded", and I remember having a LONG discussion with the course sup about what the word might actually be.
But I found myself that, when trying to study a scientific subject to gain an understanding of a particular point, but without being an expert in that area, it was INEVITABLE that you would come across words that you COULDN'T actually clear up, because they relied on concepts that, to understand them, would require a long and thorough study of a huge amount of material. It never made sense to me to have to spent six months studying mathematical physics (say), because the word 'tensor' (say) had been mentioned somewhere. So I quickly learned that you had to be sensible when it came to looking up words. As a result, I never rigorously followed the rule that you needed to look up EVERY definition of a word. Sometimes that was useful; most of the time, it wasn't, and could actually make you understand the word LESS than if you'd just focused on the core meanings that related to what you were reading.
That's why I think that the Primary Rundown (look up EVERY word mentioned in the Student Hat, in alphabetical order) would be a recipe for utter confusion on the part of a student.
My attitude when it came to word chains ended up being that I would look up words to the extent that I found it useful. If I found myself in word chains involving subjects in which I had no interest, I skipped it.
So I think that Hubbard's choice to add reams and reams of photography and pipe organ terms to the Student Hat materials was ill advised. I had no interest in either subject, and resented having to wade through the word clearing on those subjects just to get through the tapes. Not to mention that it conflicted with another precept of the study tech, which was "study for application", and that you needed to have INTEREST in a subject before you could study it successfully. I also spent a lot of time trying to figure out terms like "SEC ED" and how it differed from "Sec'l ED". "Secretarial to the Executive Director". But secretarial, in that sense, didn't exist in the dictionary. I had no idea what it was supposed to mean, and spent about a day with the Word Clearer at St. Hill going around in circles. If I was confronted with that now, I would just sort of guess the meaning (presumably it means that a secretary wrote it on behalf of the ED, or something like that). And anyway, all this stuff related to the historical pattern of the orgs, and didn't exist in present time anyway.
For someone who had "discovered" study tech, Hubbard at times didn't seem aware of its implications. The tech dictionary told me that the Class VII course was the internship for the Class VI course. But it WASN'T. The SHSBC had its own internship, and the Class VII course was something else. And I remember having to basically GUESS what the difference between a Dianetic Clear and a Scientology Clear was (presumably a Scientology Clear was someone who went Clear via the Clearing Course, but, if I recall correctly, the Tech Dictionary didn't say that). Also, when studying at St. Hill, if you didn't get in early and grab your favourite dictionary, you ended up having to use a dictionary that was over your head. I could study a course using the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary NOW, but when I was 18, it was way over my head. I quickly bought my own dictionaries - you couldn't survive otherwise.
When I first arrived at ITO for KTL auditor training, the first thing that happened was that we were all given an RTC-type issue to read that went on for pages and pages, and no access to dictionaries. It was full of rules and regulations, and penalties for divulging the secrets, etc. I think we had to sign it once we had read it. With hindsight, I think we must have been expected not to actually read it. I, still being a fanatic, read every page of it, and asked for a dictionary. At the time I thought, "Isn't it appalling that we start the KTL by reading this, without a dictionary, and probably getting MUs on it as we go". But it's those little points that, with hindsight, are tell-tale signs that the RTC doesn't really believe their own teachings.
Anyone who has ever learned a foreign language knows that it's IMPOSSIBLE to study a foreign language without going past MUs, even if you WANT to understand it all. The differences in grammar alone will ensure that it's not possible to understand everything at the start of your studies. You HAVE to be willing to strategically go past MUs, and focus on the things that you CAN learn about the language at the level at which you find yourself.