6211C15 SHSpec-213 Clearing Technology

     We are pretty well there, technologically, although things can still be
sorted out and neatened up.  More data keeps appearing, of course.  When you
are on top of the mountain, you can see alternate routes up.  Just don't
forget the way you got there and could get others up.

     One reason you don't like to see long goals lists is that you don't like
having to tiger drill every goal.  It takes an average of a minute per goal,
even when the case is running well.  If the case is not well-prepared, the PC
will have a persistent dirty needle.  We used to call this the PC's needle
pattern.  It means that ruds are out, and it is not OK.  This dirty needle
that you see on goals lists won't clean up with mid-ruds.  Persistent dirty
needle and a dirty read -- an instant read that goes "Bzzzt!" on the needle --
are not the same thing.  If ruds are in and the PC is well-prepared, a dirty
needle means the list is incomplete.  Or you could have listed from the wrong
question, e.g. the wrong pre-hav question.  Actually, if you use the right
question and the item is on the list, even if it is the PC's first list, when
you null it, the dirty needle, if any, disappears.  After a PC is prepared,
the only reason thereafter that a dirty needle occurs and mid-ruds don't
handle it is that the list is not complete.  The item is the missed withhold
that dirties the needle.  Therefore, assuming a prepared PC, there are two
variables that cause dirty needle on nulling:

     1. Wrong question.

     2. List incomplete.

This makes it a little more difficult.  You may have to use trial and error to
discover what it is.

     [Details on assessing goals.  There is a new experimental process: you
can assess the long list of goals, then only tiger drill the ones that stay in
after the single assessment.  The PC should let the auditor know if pain turns
on.  Pain goes deeper than the meter, and it may indicate the presence of the
item when felt or a few items earlier on the list.]

     You can get the PC to list goals from terminals and oppterms, using the
commands:  "What goals would (terminal) have?" and "If you were (oppterm),
what goal of yours would be impossible to achieve?"

     Just having the PC write out a goals list is very therapeutic, even on
raw meat.  Reading something once has minimal restimulation.  Beyond three
times, you have started running a process.  So you can go over a goals list
once, and the only thing hot enough to give the PC somatics will be the goal.
So watch for the somatic while on that assessment.

     Another method of goals finding is known as the prepcheck!  You will get
an early MEST clear with enough use of the method described in HCOB 21Mar62
"Prepchecking Data -- When to Do a What".  A lot of people sit around not
looking.  They do, not look.  That is their motto.  A problem that has shown
up is that after two or three Problems Intensives, the PC keeps saying that
such and such is his goal, and he wants to know what to do about it.  In other
words, you tiger drill the PC until his goal reads!  The vital part is to
assess the right problem.  If you run the right one smoothly, run it, don't Q
and A, keep ruds in, the PC will tend to go MEST clear and the goal floats
into view.  It could take four or five Problems Intensives.  This would be a
very simple way to do it.  It may not work on all oases.  Maybe if we added a
Routine 2 button or two to the Problems Intensives, using Roll Your Own
Pre-hav [See pp. 333-334, above] against a Problems Intensive, [we might find
the goal this way.]

     The only thing wrong with a Problems Intensive is to find a truly
self-determined change.  On the Queen Elizabeth, Reg Thorpe was auditing LRH,
and LRH only found two real self-determined changes, this lifetime.  So we can
assume that most PCs are answering fallaciously.  We should realize that there
is a trick built into the Problems Intensive.  You get the PC to give you a
change that he believes to have been self-determined, then you find the prior
confusion and the determination for that change.  So there is probably
something wrong with the question.  There shouldn't be a trick to it.  You
should just use "change", not "self-determined change" We formerly asked for
self-determined changes so as not to have him give engrams.  However, the
prepcheck buttons are powerful enough to run the PC through engrams.  He won't
get stuck in an engram anyway, if he doesn't have a missed withhold.  That is
what sometimes makes PCs curl up in a ball and go into an engram while you are
tiger drilling:  the missed withhold.  Pull the missed withhold, and he will
come right out of the dramatization.  The PC's effort to withhold is what
pulls him back into the incident, because he can't be in PT.

     So you could ask for "times you decided to change".  Then the PC doesn't
have to tell you a lie to answer.  A bad assessment can give you no TA, so, in
handling Problems Intensives, keep your eye on the TA.  You should get TA in
the first twenty minutes on the first button.  If not, drop the first change
and do a new assessment.