ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

The Tone Scale: How Valid Is It?

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by Dulloldfart, May 7, 2017.

  1. Wilbur

    Wilbur Patron Meritorious

    Yes, I'd agree that there's SOMETHING in the tone scale, Terril. But I don't think it's the all-encompassing model that it claims to be. Once you start having to say, "well, yes, tone level is the thing, but you have to take into account education, oh, and chronic tone versus acute tone, oh and the body's tone level versus the thetan's tone level, oh, and the purposes of the person, etc etc" then what predictive value is left?

    Also, on your point about tone 6-40: I'm willing to accept that it might be correct. But without Hubbard explaining precisely how he derived it, there's no way of really knowing, except saying that it feels intuitively right (which is just another way of saying that you take Hubbard's science on faith). In which case, I may as well make up my own tone scale. Something like tone level is supposed to be very scientific, based on wavelengths, and so it should be possible to state how one comes up with the labels of "action", "games" "postulates" etc., and how one decides what order they go in. Otherwise it's just someone's intuitive opinion, that I'm supposed to accept without confirmation. I'm more interested in how Hubbard derived the tone scale in full (or the conditions formulas) than I am interested in the scale itself, because something I can derive myself is useful. Something plucked out of someone else's ass isn't.

  2. lotus

    lotus stubborn rebel sheep!

    I wonder what tone level this is :eyeroll:

    Oh boy..we all ( I mean the entheta suppressive) came close to be disposed of quietly and withouth sorrow....
    :hide: :tiptoe: this 1,1 - covert hostility of the degraded beings ???? :unsure:

    Hopefuly it's not..I don't wanna share my tone level with the Hubs :nervous:
  3. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    With all those different entities experiencing their own emotions simultaneously, how could a human being be expected to only experience one at a time? :)

    Another thought: how granular are we getting here? If someone is aware of "their" anger one moment, and "their" boredom 200 milliseconds later, does this count as the same time?


    Just some idle comments. As accused, personally I do tend to think of experiencing one emotion at a time.

  4. Cat's Squirrel

    Cat's Squirrel Gold Meritorious Patron

    This is turning into a very interesting discussion.

    Feeling two emotions at once; how about somebody leaving school or college and starting a new job? They might be feeling sad about leaving their old life and friends behind, and simultaneously excited about going on to a new phase of their existence, meeting new friends, etc. As Paul says though, it depends on how granular you want to make it; they could be alternating between the two rather than feeling both at the same time.
  5. arcxcauseblows

    arcxcauseblows Patron Meritorious

    Hubbard did so many foolish things on the subject of emotions

    Trs are unhealthy, internalizing emotions is unhealthy

    Scientologists are judgy numb low toned robotic and hypnotized

    That tone scale is a tool for genocide read science of survival

    he'd just assume dispose of everyone below 2.0 quietly without sorrow, that's an acceptable solution to him

    Who even talks like that let alone publish it in a book...

    Then again who let's their wife go to jail for them, drives their child to suicide, disowns a wife and daughter, teaches messenger children to run around mocking his low tones cussing out adults, created a cult that disconnects families and emptied their bank accounts, kept secrets about zenu and body thetan, etc. etc. etc.

    It's sick let that go

    If you want to study emotions check out something scientific and academic not some sick self centered genocidal judgemental garbage from a cult
  6. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    Like what? Is there anything scientific and academic even somewhat similar, apart from obvious derivatives? Is there any academic research into some scale of emotion? Has anyone wired people up to measuring instruments of some kind (not e-meters!) and noted that an observed hostility accompanies a reading of 781-845 whatsits while a peaceful demeanor measures 1434-1763 whatsits in the eight test subjects? Or whatever.


    Ah . . . Abraham-Hicks emotional guidance scale. Reading about now. . . . Never mind! Different from Hubbard, but not academic/scientific. "Abraham" is a set of entities that Hicks channeled. Ahem.

  7. AngeloV

    AngeloV Gold Meritorious Patron

    1. Some are, some aren't. Conservatism is not an emotion, it is a manner of thinking and acting when dealing with something tangible that is in short supply. Money is not infinite so dealing with it (spending) requires making decisions about one's needs vs. one's wants. I am assuming that the Old Quack meant this and not the political meaning (because liberalism is not on the chart).
    2. Sometimes. People can be sad but 'put on a happy face' at the same time.
    3. No, it is arbitrary. I can argue that 'covert hostility' is a 'higher' emotion than anger because anger wastes energy, causes high blood pressure and can lead to a stroke. While covert hostility requires less energy and requires thinking/scheming.
    Further, it lacks other emotions like love and lust. What about hunger or thirst? Aren't those feelings akin to emotions?
    4. It arbitrary also and contains vast generalities. And the fundamental use of it is to 'evaluate' humans...pigeonholing them into categories...for what purpose? The Old Quack used this as leverage to force people into auditing so that they can go 'up tone'.
  8. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on

    :clapping: YES! :clapping:

    Hubbard forgot to include some other EMOTIONAL TONES. . .

    Calm: Scientologists have that tone level a lot. ("my space feels calm")

    Certainty: I think this tone level should go right in there, just above exhilaration (8.0). My research proves that certainty is 8.027 on the tone scale.

    Total Certainty: Scientologists are usually chronically stuck in this tone which is at 8.01847 on the tone scale.

    Eternity: This is the tone level that all Scientologists are attempting to attain. It is extremely difficult. In fact nobody except LRH has achieved it. Attaining "eternity" is made even more difficult because if a Scientologist does/says anything wrong--or even thinks a bad thought--senior management can take away this tone level from the guilty party.
  9. Terril park

    Terril park Sponsor

    If he had spelled it out more clearly and promoted more
    strongly the virtues of affinity/empathy staff and members
    would not have behaved so much like cold hearted money
    grabbing bitches who were prepared to lie and abuse
    others for the sake of stats.
  10. JustSheila

    JustSheila Crusader

    No, because any scale of emotions would violate known information about emotions. Studies don't begin based on knowingly false information.

    Like anything else that Hubs claimed to have come up with on his own, there is some original work that was plagiarized, disguised and altered. Here are a couple of forerunners to Hubs' tone scale. They are far less broad and, unlike the Tone Scale, scientifically accurate, so they aren't a "scale." An emotional scale isn't scientific, it just doesn't work:

    Added: Paul, the only thing useful in the tone scale is knowing that if you mirror another's emotion, they'll probably like you better, and you can probably get them to mirror yours, too. That's nothing new. People do that naturally when they are compassionate, sympathetic or just involved in a mutual group activity. Faking it intentionally in order to get what you want is very Hubbardian. A fraudster's trick.
  11. George Layton

    George Layton Silver Meritorious Patron

    How right you are. So if you can't find any scientific or academic studies search the next best source available out there anywhere, hubbard.
  12. I told you I was trouble

    I told you I was trouble Suspended animation

    As far as I can see the tone scale was just another one of hubbards tools of manipulation ... a sales aid to be used by someone who isn't a natural sales person or manipulator.

    It was all so tacky and grubby but when it was first used back in the day it was quite effective, I can't imagine many being so easily fooled these days though, people are way more savvy and alert for sales tricks and smarm.
  13. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    Sorry if I didn't make it clear. I was referring to a (hypothetical?) study where the researchers simply observed physical measurements on some device(s), correlated them to observed emotions, and ordered them based on the readings. For example, with a too-small sample of four subjects (persons) and a certain number of test runs, the results measured in units of whatsits might be:

    [table="width: 600, class: grid"]
    [td]Person A[/td]
    [td]Person B[/td]
    [td]Person C[/td]
    [td]Person D[/td]
    [td]Emotion P[/td]
    [td]Emotion Q[/td]
    [td]Emotion R[/td]
    [td]Emotion S[/td]

    From these results the sequence in decreasing order of whatsitness would be:

    Emotion R
    Emotion S
    Emotion P
    Emotion Q

    Exactly what is being measured is open to interpretation, of course, and would depend heavily on exactly what the whatsits are (I would assume some kind of electromagnetic quantity). And there would be problems with calling the exact emotions to ensure some kind of replicability, etc etc. And maybe there would be no significant correlation at all.

  14. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    I haven't looked beyond a quick Google search.

  15. F.Bullbait

    F.Bullbait Oh, a wise guy,eh?

    Tone Scale is a glib delineation of what is essentially undefinable.

    However, emotions are a source of interesting conjecture.

    In regards to empathy/sympathy:
    I recall that LRH defined empathy as being the same as someone else. He put sympathy in the effort band: attempting to be the same as.

    An interesting idea regarding Tone is quality of particle.
    High Tone having a quality of a fine, light, rapid particle.
    Low Tone having a quality of a course, heavy, slow particle.

    Another interesting idea on Tone Scale is resonance.
    One doesn't move up and down the tone scale in a step fashion but jumps from one state to another one of the same 'frequency' characteristic.
    There are an number of demonstrations on YouTube about this phenomenon, usually acoustical or mechanical in nature.

    I like the idea of multiple Tones existing at the same time. For instance, if I feel reactive anger coming on, I jazz it up with enthusiasm until it blows. One might alternatively say that I speed up the particles until they jump to a higher state.

    Last edited: May 9, 2017
  16. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    I like to think of how I feel on a roller coaster. I like roller coasters and when I'm on one I feel exhilaration, terror, joy, excitement, wonder -- all at once. There are millions of other examples anyone could find with a similar mix of emotions all at once.

    The idea that one can only experience one emotion at a time and that you must slide through a bunch of intervening emotions whenever you change emotion is silly. It doesn't stand up to simple self-observation.

    It is very rare that I am only experiencing only one emotion and that is usually when nothing much is happening.

    Hubbard's Tone Scale is what I would call, the Scientology confirmation trick. Most of Scientology uses it. The confirmation trick goes like this: Hubbard describes emotions in great detail -- he says it's true -- I do have emotions -- I can imagine some of his description applies to me -- therefore IT'S TRUE!. Then: I'll just shove everything into Hubbard's little box and make it "true" for me.

    Or, the short version: Hubbard describes emotions -- I have emotions -- therefore: Hubbard's tone scale is TRUE.
  17. JustSheila

    JustSheila Crusader

    Yeh, I can't see how that could be done, Paul. Measuring emotions would be measuring a reaction that everyone has, but different things cause that reaction in different people to different degrees, so no controlled experiment is even possible. To reiterate, this is the definition of emotion that I use:

    (Hockenbury & Hockenbury, 2007)

    The above definition makes emotions far too individualistic to be capable of being subjected to any controlled experiment.

    As far as Tone Scale, I don't even think you need it to mirror others' emotions if you just talk about what the person is interested in. Who says you can't take someone angry and not get the person enthusiastic about fighting what they are angry about? :shrug:

    Sure, calming an angry person down may get them to just ruffled feathers (aggressive), then bored, maybe, or maybe go straight to strong interest on resolving the problem. Anger to action is almost instant in some people sometimes, and all the rest get skipped.

    I have no use for the Tone Scale, Paul, or the Chart of Human Evaluation, nothing more to really say on this.

  18. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

  19. TheOriginalBigBlue

    TheOriginalBigBlue Gold Meritorious Patron

    And all too often Scientologists don't address the underlying problem or impetus for the emotion so their attempt to use the Tone Scale to modify the other person's state is essentially a form of mockery for purposes of manipulation. It might work the way a debate tactic works against another person's ability to convince an audience but that doesn't necessarily mean that they made the most rational strongest argument. And the other person who was manipulated on some level eventually processes what happened and you got another emotion to deal with - possibly if not probably stronger and more intractable.

    Same goes for Scientology "communication" techniques. Maybe firmly and repeatedly acknowledging someone gets them to shut up and leave - but they will be back even more POed than before.

    Scientology is deeply flawed because it depends so heavily on classification based on theory and tactic instead of logic and practical solutions to real life problems. One of the most salient examples of this is routing someone to the RPF because the e-meter rock slams. Even if it really is a rock slam does the mere existence of a mental phenomena justify the humiliation of removing them from post, isolating them from friends, family and co-workers and debasing them with harsh treatment and squalid living conditions? Assigning someone a lower condition because stats are down without any consideration for factors beyond the person's control is another. The list of arbitrary behavior based on these kinds of neatly canned scales is long.

    ...and it is all so checkered suit 50s.

    "Hey, emotions are kind of like a piano keyboard or the dial on my ham radio set. I can sell that!"
  20. Cat's Squirrel

    Cat's Squirrel Gold Meritorious Patron

    Didn't Elizabeth Kubler Ross have a similar scale (though she didn't call it that) where she described a standard sequence of emotions which people go through as they approach death? I remember that Ruth Minshull mentioned it in "How To Choose Your People".

    The one difference I remember is that where Scientology has the word "apathy", Kubler-Ross had the word "acceptance," which she saw as a more positive thing.

    * A Swiss psychiatrist who did a lot of work with the dying.