Claire Swazey
Spokeshole, fence sitter
ummm..nooo...those are things the auditor has to do. I was talking about receiving auditing.
sigh.
Scientology is all bad
- Thread starter Veda
- Start date
ummm..nooo...those are things the auditor has to do. I was talking about receiving auditing.
sigh.
Infinite
Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Oh. I see what you mean. I was talking about receiving comfort, assistance, and insights. Nothing to do with Auditing. Ooops!
SweetnessandLight
Crusader
People can convince themselves that anything they do is helpful. We all indulge in magical thinking from time to time, (Scientologists more than any other group I have ever encountered) and while too much of it is definitely dangerous to one's well-being, sometimes it is a very useful coping mechanism. Why do people carry a rabbit's foot or other lucky charm to make them feel more secure? That's subjective, too.
To answer your rhetorical question; Not when those "subjective opinions" are coming from indoctrinated Cult members. Not in my book. They ARE NOT reliable reporters. Their critical thinking skills and other higher thought processes are TOO shut down. I love you Pandy, but I think you are barking up the wrong tree here. Maybe self-justification for going so far down the Scientology rabbit hole yourself?
Not when they are forced to have VGI's and write up their "wins" in a "success story" before they are allowed to leave the "counseling" (*Sweetness spits on the ground) session, or are made to sign up to pay for more...if they are not getting wins.
What a racket! Okay, can we agree that there is no supporting scientific research or evidence which shows Dianetics processing to be effective in helping people to heal, mentally, physically, emotionally?
That's the bottom line, isn't it?
Love you, Big Hugs to everyone who still thinks Dianetics is great.
SweetnessandLight
Crusader
Okay, that's called hypnosis... the "feel" (it used to be "see") my finger routine, repeatedly... or any other assist, like the contact assist, nerve assist, etc....anytime you get someone in pain to focus their attention on something other than their pain, the pain lessons and often turns off.
Get entrainment (what we and other animals do in joining up with each other) with the practitioners slow breathing and calm, confident demeanor, and the effect is even quicker. Shamans do it, native healers of all stripes do it, hell, I could do it when I was six years old. We're hard-wired to have this response to pain, to help us survive. Duh!
Okay, I don't mean to sound abrupt, but this is no mystery if you know anything about how our brains and neurological systems work.
Our extreme heat is making mine a wee bit testy. I really do love you guys!
Smilla
Ordinary Human
The auditor is not actually listening to, or communicating with, the *customer* in any authentic or meaningful way. It's actually a very stilted and inauthentic simulation of communication, as ordered by Hubbard. Superficially, it looks a bit like communication, but it's a charade.
If I really listen to you telling me something of importance to you, I will give priority to you - stop my distractions, and honestly reflect on the meaning and significance of what you're telling me. In that situation, you are leading, and I'll do my best to follow where you're leading. If I don't understand, I'll say so, and ask you to explain more, if needs be. When I feel that I do understand, I'll give you an open and honest response, including my feelings and thoughts about what you told me, and any further questions I need to ask to really grasp what you're talking about. You lead.
That's authentic.
"Ok, I got that - good" is idiocy of the highest order, when somebody has just told you something which holds immense personal importance for them.
Leading somebody through Hubbard's 'processing' whilst taking notes, and fiddling with an e-meter, doesn't leave any room for genuine, involved, participatory communication.
And then, when the *customer* has something they want to say that isn't a response to Hubbard's processing script, the response is "OK - I'll repeat the *command*. Lol!
Inauthentic. Not involved. Not participatory.
Fake.
Jquepublic
Silver Meritorious Patron
Wow, anyone who says that had some pretty shitty auditors. I felt, and feel, that I managed to help the people I took in session despite the fact that we were in a cult running processes dreamed up (at least in part) by a madman.
I don't think what works in auditing has much to do with the processes themselves. It's the relationship between the auditor and pc that gives results. Anytime you have one person caring for another, listening non-judgmentally and accepting and STILL CARING for that person, you are going to see improvement. That nobody needs to be holding cans or reading a meter to have that happen just doesn't seem to dawn on you until after a bit of time, distance and reflection!
TG1
Angelic Poster
I'm liking this thread again, too, and would like to stick my oar in for a couple of strokes.
First, I would like to say how very much I Heart Science -- both the physical and social sciences.
Which is to say I Heart Science Experiments. You know, the real kind where real measurements are taken and subjects are required to demonstrate actual skills (observed and rated by people who know what those skills look like) or step on the scales or read an eyechart or take a performance test or produce their bank statements or gas mileage records.
I adore the kinds of experiments where you have some people who get "the treatment" and others who don't. The kind where subjects are not told precisely what kind of treatment they're taking or not taking and what changes it's expected or not expected to effect. I'm talking about the kinds of science experiments described years ago by two guys called Stanley and Campbell. See http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/desdes.php
I am also fascinated by what appears to be the Power of Placebos, which some of us have discussed here before -- those phemomena noticed when positive thinking and prayer and visioning and other woo-woo stuff gets introduced. It is starting to look like some human beings under some circumstances can talk themselves into changing in some ways.
But that woo-woo stuff is also becoming the stuff of science. Well designed experiments and good science are trying to tease out what is happening and what is possible.
Now, carry on.
TG1
First, I would like to say how very much I Heart Science -- both the physical and social sciences.
Which is to say I Heart Science Experiments. You know, the real kind where real measurements are taken and subjects are required to demonstrate actual skills (observed and rated by people who know what those skills look like) or step on the scales or read an eyechart or take a performance test or produce their bank statements or gas mileage records.
I adore the kinds of experiments where you have some people who get "the treatment" and others who don't. The kind where subjects are not told precisely what kind of treatment they're taking or not taking and what changes it's expected or not expected to effect. I'm talking about the kinds of science experiments described years ago by two guys called Stanley and Campbell. See http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/desdes.php
I am also fascinated by what appears to be the Power of Placebos, which some of us have discussed here before -- those phemomena noticed when positive thinking and prayer and visioning and other woo-woo stuff gets introduced. It is starting to look like some human beings under some circumstances can talk themselves into changing in some ways.
But that woo-woo stuff is also becoming the stuff of science. Well designed experiments and good science are trying to tease out what is happening and what is possible.
Now, carry on.
TG1
Jquepublic
Silver Meritorious Patron
This is funny to me because I just stated the opposite!
I agree that there are too many limits imposed on the auditor's interaction with the precelar in Scn. I willfully and without apology broke those limitations for the sake of genuine communication. I was also fortunate to have an auditor or two who did the same.
Smilla
Ordinary Human
This is funny to me because I just stated the opposite!
I agree that there are too many limits imposed on the auditor's interaction with the precelar in Scn. I willfully and without apology broke those limitations for the sake of genuine communication. I was also fortunate to have an auditor or two who did the same.
No - I understood your point and accept it!
There are exceptions to every rule, and you are the expert on your own experiences.
Smilla
Ordinary Human
Just for interest.
This is very dated looking now, but have a look from 3.03.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBkUqcqRChg
This is very dated looking now, but have a look from 3.03.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBkUqcqRChg
Smilla
Ordinary Human
Veda
Sponsor
This will place you in a suggestible state where you'll have an urge to read the book 'Dianetics':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIdZKygW8vY
This will explain Dianetics to you, and tell you about engrams and the very literal time track:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt9SyNpirdo
Here you'll learn about the origins of the Clearing Course implants, and the OT OT 2 implants, and about OT 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa7OebkEmNU
What's missing is Marty Rathbun coming on at the end, and saying, with a dismissive smirk, "You're too literal-minded. All the stuff that seems wacky to you is only a metaphor And the stuff that seems to make sense to you is, well, that part's literally true."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIdZKygW8vY
This will explain Dianetics to you, and tell you about engrams and the very literal time track:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt9SyNpirdo
Here you'll learn about the origins of the Clearing Course implants, and the OT OT 2 implants, and about OT 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa7OebkEmNU
What's missing is Marty Rathbun coming on at the end, and saying, with a dismissive smirk, "You're too literal-minded. All the stuff that seems wacky to you is only a metaphor And the stuff that seems to make sense to you is, well, that part's literally true."
BardoThodol
Silver Meritorious Patron
Being an anarchist by nature, I take exception to every rule.
Smilla
Ordinary Human
BardoThodol
Silver Meritorious Patron
Here's the problem with that.
Any relatively curious or upbeat person can have "wins" on virtually anything.
Getting "wins" is an intrinsic thread that runs through all of life. I can have "wins" on a vast number of projects, ventures and adventures and even on extraordinarily simple & fleeting moments. None of those involve "tech" or "Scientology".
I've had innumerable "wins" on posting dreadful things about Scientology here on ESMB how the tech doesn't do what it warrants and guarantees. What does any of this have to do with Scientology? So in other words, people can apparently have "wins" on the opposite of Scientology. LOL. But it's true.
A person is programmed to have "wins" in their life and they spend virtually every waking moment attempting to get "wins" in one manner or another. So when a person spends years doing anything, they are bound to get wins if they are half-way competent at living.
Scientology puts a color transparency over a person's life and labels every win a technical victory. If the tech actually produced predictable and produceable "wins" people would stay in Scientology. They don't usually. That can only mean that they are getting more losses than wins. Right?
I don't contend that people don't get wins while they are in Scientology. Why shouldn't they? They are alive and they are trying to accomplish thousands of things in their lives and some of them succeed, so they are SUPPOSED to be having wins.
Look, if the WINS:LOSS ratio in anyone's life inverts, they commit suicide. Very few people, by percentage, kill themselves, so we can conclude that almost everyone on the Earth is having "wins" that outweigh the losses.
There is no "tech" involved with the 7 billion people living their lives around the world. Scientology is simply taking credit for the wins a person produces as part of the job of being alive.
I don't have any hard statistics on how many people continue Scientology after they begin it, but I did have decades of just about any kind of Scientology activity you can imagine, so I'll make an educated guess. Maybe 1-2 percent of people who reach for Scientology (book, course, auditing...) walk away from it later. What does that say about the "tech" that produces "wins"?
The re-sign success rates are probably substantially higher for people who join a local bowling league than Scientology with all its advanced OT technology. Maybe people would be having far MORE wins had they not joined.
If someone wants to call the "wins" they have in the course of living "Tech Wins" they can do that. But then they are only talking about "feel good" moments not measurable events or improved abilities.
There is an awful confusion and the blurriest line imaginable when it comes to people shuffling the rhetorical deck and confusing the ideas of "WINS" with "GRADE CHART ABILITIES ATTAINED.
So, if someone says they have wins, so what? Let 'em!
I am talking about whether the tech actually works, that is to say DOES WHAT IS SAYS IT DOES.
No argument there.
If people get wins from being on an e-meter and talking to someone else, good for them. That doesn't happen to be what Scientology says it is.
I joined Scientology to get certain results that were promised.
I discovered later that it was a fraud. A hoax.
I get far more wins being away from it and, from all appearances, so do you. Otherwise you'd be continuing your "Bridge".
I had recent meeting with some corporate big shots who wanted to hand out in their exclusive cigar club. They have "wins" from smoking cigars. There was no tech anywhere. They just enjoyed it.
I took someone out for dinner tonight and they had "wins" on the great food and Italian restaurant. No tech. Just normal life going on.
I am not having any "wins" any more on this post so I will end off. I am going to get some water (seriously) and I have no doubt I will have a "win". (Thanks Ron)
End of Friendly Rant.
I remember being on course, looking out the window at the gravel used over the tar roof, and having cognition after cognition about molecular structure, solidity, the economics of supply and demand--along with how various resources had to be applied to accomplish even the most simple task, such as putting gravel on a roof.
Part of me was thinking, "Wow, Scientology is making me more aware and able!" But, the part that was looking at the part thinking that was going, "Nope. You have cognitions about everything. Everything. The nature of pasta. How grass grows. It has nothing to do with Scientology."
I think that was the moment I started to unzip from the subject. I realized that just by looking and observing you came to understand things. All auditing did was get you to look. And you didn't need an auditor to look. And analyze. Just the willingness to do so.
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Statistical correlations of subjective data.
Makes it look 'scientific'.
Mark A. Baker
BardoThodol
Silver Meritorious Patron
My love,
"Rule" was the perfect word. It gave me an opportunity to throw out a punch line. Not only am I an anarchist, I'm a narcissist. Any opportunity to show off and grab attention is...well, a welcome blessing.
Infinite
Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Several Auditors I have spoken to feel genuine shame at their participation in what they believed to be a helpful process. Little did they realise that just as they were implanting, so too had they been implanted. By hypnotising people into hypnotising others into feeling good about telling all their secrets, L Ron Hubbard wrote a whole chapter in annals of 20th Century Criminal History. At the heart of his enterprise were altruistic people wanting to help others.
And they did, too. Immensely. One story - somewhere here - mentions a person's tearful gratitude when a random Sea Ogre took pity on a party of RPF wretches and smuggled out regular parcels of food until he too was caught actually helping. Then, beyond the real horrors, out there on the periphery of Scientology, where mostly the public linger, there are also tremendous acts of goodness and charity and understanding and acceptance . . . all that good stuff. But none of it occurs in an Auditing session. The good stuff that happens in Scientology occurs when people ignore the tech and look after each other.
Back in the Aufiting Session, however, the reverie-induced "WINS" were manufactured into "SUCCESS STORIES" to leverage the sale of more "WINS". Cash, please.
I can only imagine the transition in understanding when the necessary time, distance, and reflection comes into play. Scientology has been described as an ocean of assertions without basis. When the individual Scientologist starts to ask questions it may well be that they are feeling, somehow, cut adrift in the choppy waters of an ocean. Lost at sea, sorta. Some drift into the tranquil warm waters off the coast of "Familiarity" and bask there forever, dancing through splendid green meadows collecting Unicorn shit. By far, most seem to just drop off the face of the Eath - hopefully never to think or read another Scientology word for as long as they shall live. Fortunately, some lucky souls land upon the rocky shores of ESMB and get to go through the Wall of Fire and get on with helping. Really helping.
uniquemand
Unbeliever
I agree that it's a different style of communication, but I don't think it's inauthentic or fake in any way. The goal is not to give the other person your feedback, so much as it is to understand what they have said, what they have been through, and help them keep looking at it until they find a viewpoint on it that is more empowered than what they started with, until no further progress can be made in that direction at the current time. If you want to have a "chat", a therapeutic session is not what you should be looking for.
Just as a doctor is mostly interested in helping you heal your broken leg (if that's why you are there) and not interested in giving you his views about skiing (if that's how you broke it), a good therapist isn't there to hang out and shoot the shit. They are there to help you find what's bothering you and help you change such that it is no longer a bother or that you have some insight about how you could do so. Avoiding giving your own views is actually essential to helping the other person learn to change their own. Any indication of approval, agreement, disagreement or disapproval are all errors that end up with you in the position of a guru. The mistake in this is that people don't go to an "auditor" or a therapist to "have authentic conversations". They go there to get resolution on one or more issues.
Yes, rapport is the bottom line. If the rapport is breaking down because the person doesn't feel you like them or want to go out after the session and get your backs waxed together, then there has been a misunderstanding BEFORE the session started about what the purpose of the relationship is. Therapeutic relationships, when a fee is involved, are a SERVICE. They are not a group hug.