6509C21 SHSpec-67 Out Tech [References: HCOB 13Sep65 "Out Tech and How to Get It In" and HCOB 21Sep65 "Out Tech".] Teachers tend to say that everything is important. We are in a good position to select out the important data from all the data that we have. Someone at the HAS level can't do this. To him, every datum looks as important as every other datum. The guy at the bottom of the ladder is drowning in a sea of data that is unevaluated. This is true both in life and in scientology. The person is already overwhelmed with the confusions of life, which also overwhelm him with data. So he goes on a retreat from the whole thing. The hardest thing a thetan has to do, and "the most important thing that a thetan can recover is his ability to evaluate importances: [to know] what's important and what isn't." The value of administration of processing is a different thing from what is processed. The duplicative question, which is basic to auditing, is "the examination of the mind for the apparent answer to the question; the knocking out, then, of this, that, and the other thing, until the individual can take a look at it and see before him some data that is important." The repetitive process itself is therapeutic. Repetitive processes "permit the individual to examine his mind and environment and, out of it, [to] select the unimportances and importances." The duplicative question is unique to scientology. Other things work because of this duplicative action. Moreover, to find out what is important and unimportant, the person has to find out what is and what isn't. He would get a great clarification of things, because he is being presented with certain vistas of existence and conditions of existence, and he is examining them, and he is taking them in, or he is knocking them out. He is handling existence and reorienting himself. Someone can get things clarified by getting more data about life from study. However, as he does this, he is straightening up his own mind, and his real gain, when the chips are all the way down, largely depends on the auditor. Someone who is drowning in the sea of life gets a repetitive command from an auditor and as-ises various confusions. The PC's statements on the question are handled and as-ised. Those statements are then acknowledged by the auditor, making a full cycle of the situation. Only then can the PC get up to a point where he himself might, all by himself, confront his own mind. Only when he's got his mind straightened out can he really benefit from new data. He's got his own mind and life so mixed up that he has completely forgotten what a mind is all about, and in a large majority of cases, people aren't even aware that they have minds. At best, they think that they are minds, and perhaps that they have souls. Saving oneself seems too egoistical, so one saves one's soul. Man is at effect. He looks for the one-shot clear, or "enlightenment"." It's not that scientology is slow. It's that Man has gone so far down. "But the big gains aren't so much at the top. They are at the bottom -- getting started. These gains are startling. Just getting the idea that there is a road out can be a big win. The individual has had a lot of loses on this line. To him, scientology is like a straw in the ocean. Helped by an auditor, the person can look at himself and life and make more gains. It is a lone ladder, contrary to the general idea and desire for a fast way to the top. The person makes his first real gains on coming to realize that there is a road out. So there is a dependency on: 1. The disseminator. 2. The intro lecturer. 3. The course supervisor. They all perform vital functions, and they can produce more dramatic results than you would ever expect, being used to auditing as the way to get changes. The changes on the chart are made in session, but the biggest mistake you could make would be not teaching scientology and not disseminating. People in society are very confused and distracted. One of the soundest ways to reach them is to talk about communication and telling them that scientology exists and, as their friend, is interested in helping them. You tell a person that if he could communicate to his environment better, he could handle it better. You tell him that if he were to talk to his wife, it would come out better. The only dicey thing there, is that he has been punished, perhaps, for communicating, so it might be difficult along the way. Dissemination and teaching lines can be a bit wobbly, but if the individual makes some gains, he will still do OK. But auditing lines can't afford to be wobbly. When the person gets to auditing, that is where there is no room for shakiness or flubbiness. Now, tech is tech. The comm cycle has to be good. The questions have to be understood by and acceptable to the PC. They must also be answered [and acknowledged]. Up to the point of getting the person in session, it is debatable exactly what the correct technical action (in disseminating to him) is, because you are disseminating into such a confusion: life as it exists. It is still debatable what it is best to lecture to people about. A common denominator is that lecturing about communication is a good idea. But auditing isn't debatable. It works with precision, if it is applied with precision. There must be no GAE's in auditing. There is leeway in dissemination but not in auditing, which must be standard. All troubles in auditing stem from auditor goofs. So don't butter up a nattery PC. Pull his withholds. The ability to observe and tell whether what is being done is right or wrong is harder to do in auditing than in disseminating or in course supervising. The auditor can make tiny mistakes that upset the PC, so that the PC acts up. The casual observer would say that it is a difficult PC, when in fact it was auditor goofs. You have to be a good auditor to observe good and bad auditing. You will get some gain (30% to 40%, of potential) even out of bad auditing just by duplicative questions and by the fact that someone is interested in the PC. However, full gain only comes from precise right auditing. What we mean by "out tech" is "not getting the whole, 100% gains available on every PC," not just obvious goofs. Out tech is what is happening when the fine points of auditing are missing and when what really goes wrong with cases is not understood. When there is out tech, the auditor is, to be sure, sitting there giving the auditing command, but he is making lots of goofs with it. What does it take to make a good auditor? First, we have the GAE's [See HCOB 21Sep65 "Out Tech"]. There are only five GAE's: 1. Can't handle and read the E-meter. He doesn't see reads. He overcompensates when bringing the TA back to Set, giving falsely large amounts of TA action. 2. Doesn't know and can't apply technical data. This used to be "Can't read and apply an HCOB." This also includes non-duplication of CS's and not knowing that you haven't done what you were supposed to have done. 3. Can't get or keep a PC in session. This is very often the case. The PC's attention is on something other than the auditing. You have to be able to see when the PC is not in session, distracted, etc. There is a little body of technology in this area. You have to get the PC's attention by finding out what it is on and as-ising it. Note and find the ARC break, PTP, or missed withhold, and handle it. The auditor who would try to audit a PC whose attention is elsewhere is applying tech to nobody. The most obvious and silly version of this mistake is where no one got the PC an auditor, despite the PC wanting and having paid for auditing. Or the auditor is so wedded to form that when the PC comes in already in session, the auditor carefully takes the PC out of session, in order to start the session! 4. Can't complete an auditing cycle. This accounts for the PC who itsas obsessively. This PC has been prematurely acknowledged in life or in auditing, and this has happened so much that he feels as though he has never been acknowledged. E.g. a kid says, "Mommy, I just had a great idea ... ," whereupon Mommy says, "That's wonderful, dear." Failed acknowledgment and a host of other errors will also give rise to obsessive itsa, such as not asking the question, not acknowledging, Q and A, etc. There are hundreds of ways to stop an auditing cycle. One is not to start one, as when the auditor just doesn't give the command. The auditor can always polish up his comm cycle and make it better, but when it is fouling up the PC, it is grossly out, with Q and A, no question, no ack, etc. 5. Can't complete a repetitive auditing cycle. Auditors used to have immense trouble just asking the same question repetitively. The TR's and Op Pro by Dup were developed to handle this inability in auditors. As an auditing supervisor, these are the things to look for, not aspects of the auditor's case. Don't audit the auditor, as a first action. After you find the GAE, maybe the auditor could be audited, say, on his missed withholds. There are really only four [actually six] things that can be wrong with a PC: 1. The PC is suppressive. A suppressive is someone who doesn't get case gain, because he has continuing overts, not because auditing wasn't applied well. Only about 2 1/2% of PCs are suppressive. It is very hard to get this PC to give up the overts or to be made auditable for real case gain. About the only way in which we can do it is with power processing. Occasionally, someone can be over-audited so far, especially on R6EW, that they thereafter get case gain and will act slightly suppressive. They have to be rehabilitated. But a true suppressive has never had any case gain or TA. He is continually committing little overts, because to him, everyone is an enemy. Each individual is an "everyone" to the SP, who is busy fighting everyone. The SP is a "paranoid" who doesn't change. Institutional cases are all PTS's or SP's. That is why LRH has said, "Don't fool with the insane." He didn't know exactly why, but now we know. The psychiatrist is professionally a PTS. 2. The PC is PTS. The PC who is PTS roller-coasters in auditing. This is the psychiatrists' "manic-depressive" case. He feels good after auditing and then feels bad. The paranoid or catatonic who doesn't change is the suppressive. A PTS doesn't have to see the SP between sessions. He only has to think, "What will Joe think about this?" or "What would Joe say?" The SP could be 10,000 miles away. Ethics officers sometimes have trouble finding the SP, but there is one on the case. The SP speaks in generalities, which puts up a fog, making the SP hard to find. If you audit the PTS and get him better, the SP will do something to destroy him, so it is dangerous to audit him. If you give a PTS too much gain, the SP will either commit suicide or murder him. Most of our troubles have come from auditing PTS's, who then "threaten" the SP, who then incites the PTS and others to cause our problems. You have to find the right SP. Finding him gives a very positive result, not just a tiny change. When you correctly spot the SP in a PTS's case, the PTS lights up like a spotlight. 3. The PC is ARC broken. 4. The PC has a PTP of long duration. This includes hidden standards. 5. The PC has a withhold or a misunderstood word. The misunderstood word is just a withhold of understanding. The PC is withholding himself from the understanding, or vice versa. 6. The PC has continuous withheld overts. This makes the PC a suppressive. The eleven items discussed in this lecture [i.e. 5 GAE's and the 6 things that can be wrong with a PC, given above] are the only things that will act as barriers on a case. "Processes are things that work, if these six things aren't out" with the PC, and when auditors don't have GAE's. If they don't work, one or more of these is why. That is all that drives tech out. A D of P who doesn't look at these barriers to processing can't make anything work. If these [eleven] reasons why processing doesn't work are OK, almost any process will work, unless it is overrun. In other words, the only other reason why a process doesn't work is that it has worked all the way to a result and it is done. Overrun is either a problem or an ARC break. [Hence in fits into the above schema.] If the five GAE's are not present, then, if the case is not progressing, 1-6 are present. You can just assess these six things and find out what is wrong with the case. So these things are the points of out tech. "The whole environment is trying to feed [the CS] different data than these." Analysis of out tech would result in getting tech in, by not allowing GAE's and by detecting and handling the things that are wrong with PCs. A person's case is helped by the fact that, as he advances, he becomes more and more capable of selecting importances. "As you get on up the line, the selection of importances becomes more and more an ability that is easily practiced."