Controlled Test of Auditing

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
I'm one of many who've written about this, especially the lack of it. I just noticed another post about it, so thought I'd start up a thread.

The test is to see if "Scientology works", or something. Which is so broad it is unworkable. So let's just take a subset of that, and then we can have another subset maybe at some other time, rather than trying to do the whole thing at once.

Let's be real at the outset. A proper test, involving a relatively large sample of 'random people', and a control group, and double blinds and so on, even if such is possible, will require funding. Anyone here going to pay for that? Didn't think so. So STFU and let's look at what is doable. :)

My idea of what is desirable for a test of auditing would be something like:
  • For the auditor(s):
    Training and successful experience in auditor basics, TRs, and the techniques being used for the trial. Requiring a Class VI or someone with extensive experience would be an unfair test.

  • For the technique(s):
    Proven success on most people if given a decent try, at least in the auditor's opinion and not a sceptic's. :)

  • For the pc(s):
    1. Knows how to be a pc with regard to the techniques in use

    2. Sessionable! I.e. slept enough and not tired; fed enough with nutritious food and not hungry; getting auditing on own determination and willing to be in session and benefit from the auditing or be in session and not benefit from the auditing if it doesn't happen to do anything at the time but be willing either way; not under the influence of drugs or alcohol; enough time and space for the session without attention being pulled off by the kids, or work, or whatever.

  • What objective criteria will be used to say "it works" or "it doesn't work"?
    One way would be for the pc to say how he/she feels about the topic being addressed before the session(s) and after the session(s). This would be done before the session(s); and again after the session(s). It wouldn't be done at just the one time after the session when the person is supposed to remember how things were beforehand. :).

Any comments on that lot? If anyone can see the value in devising a series of trials that will cost $250,000 and no-one is ever likely to do then please explain that along with the proposals for the double-blind trials involving 100 randomly-picked members of the public, as auditor and pc, and so on.

Paul
 

JustanotherEX

Patron with Honors
I'm one of many who've written about this, especially the lack of it. I just noticed another post about it, so thought I'd start up a thread.

The test is to see if "Scientology works", or something. Which is so broad it is unworkable. So let's just take a subset of that, and then we can have another subset maybe at some other time, rather than trying to do the whole thing at once.

Let's be real at the outset. A proper test, involving a relatively large sample of 'random people', and a control group, and double blinds and so on, even if such is possible, will require funding. Anyone here going to pay for that? Didn't think so. So STFU and let's look at what is doable. :)

My idea of what is desirable for a test of auditing would be something like:
  • For the auditor(s):
    Training and successful experience in auditor basics, TRs, and the techniques being used for the trial. Requiring a Class VI or someone with extensive experience would be an unfair test.

  • For the technique(s):
    Proven success on most people if given a decent try, at least in the auditor's opinion and not a sceptic's. :)

  • For the pc(s):
    1. Knows how to be a pc with regard to the techniques in use

    2. Sessionable! I.e. slept enough and not tired; fed enough with nutritious food and not hungry; getting auditing on own determination and willing to be in session and benefit from the auditing or be in session and not benefit from the auditing if it doesn't happen to do anything at the time but be willing either way; not under the influence of drugs or alcohol; enough time and space for the session without attention being pulled off by the kids, or work, or whatever.

  • What objective criteria will be used to say "it works" or "it doesn't work"?
    One way would be for the pc to say how he/she feels about the topic being addressed before the session(s) and after the session(s). This would be done before the session(s); and again after the session(s). It wouldn't be done at just the one time after the session when the person is supposed to remember how things were beforehand. :).

Any comments on that lot? If anyone can see the value in devising a series of trials that will cost $250,000 and no-one is ever likely to do then please explain that along with the proposals for the double-blind trials involving 100 randomly-picked members of the public, as auditor and pc, and so on.

Paul

Beauty! Winner! Go Paul go!
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Beauty! Winner! Go Paul go!

Sure.

Here is a possibility. This one removes one of the variables completely, which is the difference between auditors. We use an automated auditor! :)

Even the people here on ESMB can take part. Including Anon Orange. The mechanism for finding something to audit won't work on everyone, but it works on many. It doesn't have to be done on camera, but that is for an evaluator's benefit, so he/can have an idea of "what didn't work" when told "it didn't work."

The videos in question are my usual Rub & Yawn videos at the YouTube Yawnguy channel. They are easy enough to find. Just google >>>youtube yawnguy<<< and do 'Rub & Yawn Do This First 1/3', then 'R&Y 2/3' and 'R&Y 3/3.' If you haven't seen them before and want to take part in the test don't casually click on them as that will spoil the test to some extent.

So here's my idea of how it would go:

1. Video the pc. Webcam is OK as long as it will pick up the sound through a speaker and the person's comments too.

2. Have the pc say AND MEAN aloud, on camera:

a. I promise to follow the instructions given as best I can, and to be honest and sincere in my responses

b. I have had ____ hours of sleep last night and I am not tired

c. I have eaten ___ for breakfast, ___ for lunch, (etc) and I am not hungry or thirsty at all

d. I have not taken any drugs or alcohol in the last 24 hours, and I am not under their influence

e. I have enought time available to do this, and do not have my attention on something urgent I should be doing instead

f. I am willing to benefit from this session, and also willing to not benefit from this session, whichever way it turns out.

3. Then start the video. Pay attention. Note especially that RUBBING the body hard is an essential part of the session and not doing this will likely cause the session to fail all by itself.

4. Continue with the video, including after the session itself has started, up to the point where you have THE topic in mind for the session, per the instructions. Then stop the video.

5. It may be uncomfortable, but say at that point what the topic is, and how you feel about it, why it is such a hot topic, and why it is a source of distress to you. No need to spend more than a minute on this. The idea is not to get any relief by talking about it here, just to document the "before session" state.

6. Then restart the video and do the session. If there is more to discharge at the end of the 10-minute video, go on to the second 10-minute video. Similarly onto the third 10-minute one. The topic should be pretty well cooled off (for now) before the end of the third one, as long as you have been rubbing (and yawning!) thoroughly throughout.

7. After the session, say how you feel about the topic now. You are welcome to come back a week or three or a year later and say how you feel about the topic at this later time too.
-----------

The hardest part of this is doing it on camera. But just accepting a written report with no oversight at all is kinda meaningless. Since it is my tech that would be being judged, I don't particularly like the idea of being told "it didn't work" when the person, say, gave a couple of half-hearted rubs the entire session or second-guessed the topic in the first place and ran something safe instead of what actually came up, or was clearly tired, or didn't follow some other instructions.

Also, it isn't Scientology. But it's close. :)

-----------

Alternative suggestions welcome.

Paul
 

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
Paul,

Two more items:

1. Independent (outside CofS) genuine IQ tests - before and after.

2. Independent Achievement tests (something like administered for college entrance exams, e.g. SAT). Auditing is supposedly claimed to eventually recover knowledge and skills from past lives.

I'd like to see this extensively tested by something stone-cold independent of SCN as well as the freezone.
 
Last edited:

RolandRB

Rest in Peace
I'm one of many who've written about this, especially the lack of it. I just noticed another post about it, so thought I'd start up a thread.

The test is to see if "Scientology works", or something. Which is so broad it is unworkable. So let's just take a subset of that, and then we can have another subset maybe at some other time, rather than trying to do the whole thing at once.

Let's be real at the outset. A proper test, involving a relatively large sample of 'random people', and a control group, and double blinds and so on, even if such is possible, will require funding. Anyone here going to pay for that? Didn't think so. So STFU and let's look at what is doable. :)

My idea of what is desirable for a test of auditing would be something like:
  • For the auditor(s):
    Training and successful experience in auditor basics, TRs, and the techniques being used for the trial. Requiring a Class VI or someone with extensive experience would be an unfair test.

  • For the technique(s):
    Proven success on most people if given a decent try, at least in the auditor's opinion and not a sceptic's. :)

  • For the pc(s):
    1. Knows how to be a pc with regard to the techniques in use

    2. Sessionable! I.e. slept enough and not tired; fed enough with nutritious food and not hungry; getting auditing on own determination and willing to be in session and benefit from the auditing or be in session and not benefit from the auditing if it doesn't happen to do anything at the time but be willing either way; not under the influence of drugs or alcohol; enough time and space for the session without attention being pulled off by the kids, or work, or whatever.

  • What objective criteria will be used to say "it works" or "it doesn't work"?
    One way would be for the pc to say how he/she feels about the topic being addressed before the session(s) and after the session(s). This would be done before the session(s); and again after the session(s). It wouldn't be done at just the one time after the session when the person is supposed to remember how things were beforehand. :).

Any comments on that lot? If anyone can see the value in devising a series of trials that will cost $250,000 and no-one is ever likely to do then please explain that along with the proposals for the double-blind trials involving 100 randomly-picked members of the public, as auditor and pc, and so on.

Paul

It should be enough to consider the good or otherwise overall of all these people and all their years of auditing. Are they, as a collective whole, better off or worse off than those from their social and economic group? Simple enough to answer.
 

AnonOrange

Gold Meritorious Patron
It's a good start. Try to isolate the effects you are measuring from other influences as much as possible. Use third parties that are uninvolved/unbiased to conduct the experiments and different ones to evaluate the results.

Those simple controls are the KEY to proper experiments.

Be constantly aware of your own biases, your desired results, which can corrupt the experiment.
 
I'm one of many who've written about this, especially the lack of it. I just noticed another post about it, so thought I'd start up a thread.

The test is to see if "Scientology works", or something. Which is so broad it is unworkable. So let's just take a subset of that, and then we can have another subset maybe at some other time, rather than trying to do the whole thing at once.

Let's be real at the outset. A proper test, involving a relatively large sample of 'random people', and a control group, and double blinds and so on, even if such is possible, will require funding. Anyone here going to pay for that? Didn't think so. So STFU and let's look at what is doable. :)

My idea of what is desirable for a test of auditing would be something like:
  • For the auditor(s):
    Training and successful experience in auditor basics, TRs, and the techniques being used for the trial. Requiring a Class VI or someone with extensive experience would be an unfair test.

  • For the technique(s):
    Proven success on most people if given a decent try, at least in the auditor's opinion and not a sceptic's. :)

  • For the pc(s):
    1. Knows how to be a pc with regard to the techniques in use

    2. Sessionable! I.e. slept enough and not tired; fed enough with nutritious food and not hungry; getting auditing on own determination and willing to be in session and benefit from the auditing or be in session and not benefit from the auditing if it doesn't happen to do anything at the time but be willing either way; not under the influence of drugs or alcohol; enough time and space for the session without attention being pulled off by the kids, or work, or whatever.

  • What objective criteria will be used to say "it works" or "it doesn't work"?
    One way would be for the pc to say how he/she feels about the topic being addressed before the session(s) and after the session(s). This would be done before the session(s); and again after the session(s). It wouldn't be done at just the one time after the session when the person is supposed to remember how things were beforehand. :).

Any comments on that lot? If anyone can see the value in devising a series of trials that will cost $250,000 and no-one is ever likely to do then please explain that along with the proposals for the double-blind trials involving 100 randomly-picked members of the public, as auditor and pc, and so on.

Paul


Just a thought. I don't doubt that people can benefit from "auditing".

What is the benefit of proving that the bait works?
Wouldn't it be better to prove how the switch works?
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Paul,

Two more items:

1. Independent (outside CofS) genuine IQ tests - before and after.

2. Independent Achievement tests (something like administered for college entrance exams, e.g. SAT). Auditing is supposedly claimed to eventually recover knowledge and skills from past lives.

I'd like to see this extensively tested by something stone-cold independent of SCN as well as the freezone.

Sure. I don't know if there would be any difference in the IQ. It seems to me that my ability to do IQ tests went down slightly from before I took LSD in college to after, and didn't recover afterwards in 25+ years of Scientology. That is very subjective, of course.

As for knowledge and skills from past lives, I dunno. Past-life recall of personal incidents wouldn't really count. Once I self-audited some Certainty Processing when I needed the ability to do calligraphy, using something like "There is good writing" and "There isn't good writing", and after half an hour or an hour of that I could do calligraphy to an acceptable level. I thought WOW!! ALRIGHT!! and had wild dreams of instant millionairedom from turning on all these cool abilities, but it never worked with anything else. Oh well.

Testing Hubbard's PR and bullshit claims is not the same as testing the claims of long-term auditors who have seen the results from thousands of hours of auditing on many different pcs.

Paul
 

AnonOrange

Gold Meritorious Patron
Paul,

Two more items:

1. Independent (outside CofS) genuine IQ tests - before and after.

2. Independent Achievement tests (something like administered for college entrance exams, e.g. SAT). Auditing is supposedly claimed to eventually recover knowledge and skills from past lives.

I'd like to see this extensively tested by something stone-cold independent of SCN as well as the freezone.

People get better at such tests the more they take them. If you take two IQ tests, one after the other, you will do better on the second test. People that design such tests may have a correction factor for that.

Also IQ is difficult to measure and you can expect a margin of error of maybe +/- 5 points.

Still you're on the right track. Don't be dissuaded by people that say things like: Why test ? Scientology works and it helps people.

Humans, without the rigor of a control experiment are notoriously poor at evaluating such things. That's whey ALL new medications have to go very thorough tests that last for years before efficacy can be proven. That's the main difference between alternative medicine and conventional medicine.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
That's whey ALL new medications have to go very thorough tests that last for years before efficacy can be proven. That's the main difference between alternative medicine and conventional medicine.

Efficacy at what? Making money? Do you honestly believe the FDA is on "our" side?

Paul
 
Top