Education and Study as Practiced in Scientology

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
Don't get me started - I still have nightmares about the doing the Pro TRs and Metering course. You spend months and in some cases years on the metering course and get to the end to get an RTC pass taking literally months in many students just to get a pass. What a bunch of crap!!!! :angry:


BUNCH OF CRAP!

The best way to learn the meter is to jump in with the auditing. Beforehand, you can simply clarify the meter manifestations in training, F/N, fall, rise, dirty needle, rock slam, theta bop, instant read, latent read,... It doesn't take long, a few hours at the most for the average student.

But to really learn the meter phenomena and what it might mean is to observe under actual auditing conditions. Using a mechanical read simulator or a student who is not in session to simulate reads is just wrong-headed.

In scientology-world, long runway and requiring some weird state of perfection is just a way to stop people from auditing.

In div 6, I had people co-auditing on the second night.
 
BUNCH OF CRAP!

The best way to learn the meter is to jump in with the auditing. Beforehand, you can simply clarify the meter manifestations in training, F/N, fall, rise, dirty needle, rock slam, theta bop, instant read, latent read,... It doesn't take long, a few hours at the most for the average student.

But to really learn the meter phenomena and what it might mean is to observe under actual auditing conditions. Using a mechanical read simulator or a student who is not in session to simulate reads is just wrong-headed.

In scientology-world, long runway and requiring some weird state of perfection is just a way to stop people from auditing.

In div 6, I had people co-auditing on the second night.

Hey Ted, at the recent FZ convention, Mary Freeman gave a talk and described this as exactly the way she was taught to use an emeter in auditing. Many of the processes too were slid under the door during the middle of the session and the auditors were supposed to run them on the spot.

You'ld have loved hearing her talk. It was filled with stories of auditing & training from the '60s. I swear she physically rehabbed being a "young twentysomething". She had the whole room energized. :)


Mark A. Baker
 
It would be good if, when studying scientology, a person studied other viewpoints on the subject than Hubbard's.

I agree completely. One thing I always found disenheartening is how many within scientology accepted the "invented by L.Ron Hubbard" myth primarily due to the lack of knowledge of other sources. It made the subsequent belief in the idolatry of Hubbard all the more "natural" for many.


Mark A. Baker
 

Blue Spirit

Silver Meritorious Patron
Full Agreement There

BUNCH OF CRAP!

The best way to learn the meter is to jump in with the auditing. Beforehand, you can simply clarify the meter manifestations in training, F/N, fall, rise, dirty needle, rock slam, theta bop, instant read, latent read,... It doesn't take long, a few hours at the most for the average student.

But to really learn the meter phenomena and what it might mean is to observe under actual auditing conditions. Using a mechanical read simulator or a student who is not in session to simulate reads is just wrong-headed.

In scientology-world, long runway and requiring some weird state of perfection is just a way to stop people from auditing.

In div 6, I had people co-auditing on the second night.

Absolutely true what you say, as the real mass with a PC never happens

unless you do the auditing. An oldtime trainer said the same to me.


When you get a pilot's license, it has been traditional to solo the new pilot

just as soon as possible without him crashing. That gives confidence from

handling the actual situation and masses involved.


DM's GAT crap is only another way to assure no one makes it up the line.

He is a textbook case of raving SP. :angry: :angry: :omg:
 

RogerB

Crusader
Ted is Correct

BUNCH OF CRAP!

The best way to learn the meter is to jump in with the auditing. Beforehand, you can simply clarify the meter manifestations in training, F/N, fall, rise, dirty needle, rock slam, theta bop, instant read, latent read,... It doesn't take long, a few hours at the most for the average student.

But to really learn the meter phenomena and what it might mean is to observe under actual auditing conditions. Using a mechanical read simulator or a student who is not in session to simulate reads is just wrong-headed.

In scientology-world, long runway and requiring some weird state of perfection is just a way to stop people from auditing.

In div 6, I had people co-auditing on the second night.

Ted is brilliantly correct :yes:

I "trained" my sweet Virginia from scratch to maser solo processor. She was never in Scn, and she is now wholly responsible for her own case progress as well as completely compentent in processing others with or without a meter.

The sequence was a) give her wins and an experiential reality that this stuff works, b) team her up with another to do some elementary stuff without a meter (I case advised their wins), c) introduce her to a meter and explain the theory behind its working and the phenomena of its reading; then came the subtle twist. I had her take her meter into her solo sessions, not to use it as a vital part of the session, but to simply observe its reactions while she did her regular basic R/D solo sessions.

This action had her both experience the case action as well as observe the comparable meter phenomena. No great import was placed on the meter reads at this stage of the game, and she was told it does not matter if she misses things at this stage of her learning curve . . . the more important thing is her regular session actions and her wins from that. Just use the meter in session to gain familiarity with it.

Today, she is a master with the meter. :yes:

The trouble with what is going on in the church today is that perfection is demanded all the time with oversized penalties for misses. Toooooo much theory before you get to use the physical phenomena that you are supposed to be learning.

The system is idiotic enough to teach you allllll those meter reaction/reads, and then in the next breath of application to contradict it and tell you the only needle actions that are reads are the you-know-whats :grouch: CONTRARY FACTS, WOT?!?!

In practice, I've often found folks only require a very little theory about a thing being learned before you get them dealing with the action or real thing to be learned. Like, they do need to know what knobs do what and what the basic mechanics of things are . . . the rest they learn by DOING. I have found this whether it is swimming, surfing, lifesaving, skiing, horse riding, driving, fishing, sailing, mathematics or processing and meter reading I am facilitating the learning of.

RogerB
 
Last edited:

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
I saw a lot of interned classed auditors who already knew how to meter, spend MONTHS on that damn course!


Mystery Samich.

Somehow they copped the idea there was something they did not know or there was someone who could meter betta.

There being nothing there, they could work at it for a year and never find it.
 

Out-Ethics

Patron Meritorious
BUNCH OF CRAP!

The best way to learn the meter is to jump in with the auditing. Beforehand, you can simply clarify the meter manifestations in training, F/N, fall, rise, dirty needle, rock slam, theta bop, instant read, latent read,... It doesn't take long, a few hours at the most for the average student.

But to really learn the meter phenomena and what it might mean is to observe under actual auditing conditions. Using a mechanical read simulator or a student who is not in session to simulate reads is just wrong-headed.

In scientology-world, long runway and requiring some weird state of perfection is just a way to stop people from auditing.

In div 6, I had people co-auditing on the second night.

I was at Flag back in the mid 70s and me and my twin were bogged on infamous track-dating drills. I mean we were two big lumps of sold mass going absolutely nowhere. These two class 8 auditors were helping in the course room and began to work with us. They worked on our comm cycle and spotting the different meter reactions that were occuring and before long we got good at doing the dating drill.

After that incredible coaching we received we both got really good at doing M-2, 4 and meter checks. Anyways months later I had a student bogged on the dating drill and it was after hours so I told him to pick a date and pick up the cans. I hadn't done this drill since Flag at that time. He wrote his date down and I proceeded to get the date. I just went bang-bang-bang and within 5 minutes I had the exact date he wrote on his paper. I then proceeded to drill him on it until and he finally got it and passed the drill. Today I would have been lined up against the wall and shot for doing that but it worked. And it was on the old Mark V meters.

Back then because I used the meter quite a bit I was confident with it. Now it's like a twisted mystery to me so I agree here completely that it shouldn't take long to use such a tool. The runway to make an auditor nowadays is ridiculous. You have to committ yourself fulltime and it stills takes literally years to get trained and by the time you finish that you find out that new things were discovered then you have to start all over again. Now that is a bunch of crap. :shithitfan: :bullshit:
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
I can teach someone all they need to know to run a session and get results in less than a week. No meter needed. No complex procedures needed. You can add bells and whistles to it, later, and get more refined about how you handle different types of charge, but most people don't need or want all of that, and what they want handled can be addressed with the basics: communication skills, and a few concepts like "earlier similar", end phenomena, etc.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Mystery Samich.

Somehow they copped the idea there was something they did not know or there was someone who could meter betta.

There being nothing there, they could work at it for a year and never find it.

Right.

It was just grinding. I saw students who had day jobs who started out with a normal part time schedule, actually bumping it up and coming in all Fdn course periods just to get through the course, having a terrible time. They weren't dummies and neither were the interned classed auditors who were made to take it.
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Questions for Ted and Uniquemand

I had an experience doing the E meter dating drill at my local Class V Org about 19 years ago in 1998 or 1999. I wasn't getting anywhere on the drill and a veteran supervisor, Paul, came to help me probably because I was on the grid to graduate that week and was not going to make it without his help. Paul was a Class VI, I believe, and really knew his stuff!

We started doing the drill and he flunked me immediately for out TR's, He was firm, no comm lag, though assertive, but in his own way he was kind and not making me wrong. After my TR 1 improved, I started to get reads and was getting the proper read about 70% of the time. He then had me read something by LRH about "projecting one's intention". After doing this, I started getting close to 100% success, maybe 90% and the few times I flunked, he was able to accurately spot some minor outpoint I made in projecting my intention. In all of his flunks, they were instant and he told me instantly what I had done wrong in a firm but pleasant way. He himself had 100% certainty in the drill materials and firmly believed that if done right , the drill would work 100% of the time.

I started getting an accurate instant read on 100% of my dating questions. We then went for my pass and he scribbled a date on a piece of paper and I began asking the questions. After about ten of the before 1950?, after 1950?, was it 1950? type questions, I found the exact date with no flubs. He then scribbled another date and within 10 more questions with no flubs I found the second date. He then gave me a pass on the drill. With ten hits done two times in a row, that was 20 perfect questions in a row plus about 5 perfect hits in practice right before starting the drill. Getting 25 instant reads without a hitch, I not only passed the drill but believed in the tech.

Later on, when I tried the drill on others, I could not always get 100%. Depending on the coach, a guy who used to yield the correct read maybe 15% of the time was now up to 60% and a person who I liked who used to get maybe 50% was now getting about 85 to 90%. Paul came in to coach me again and with him, I still got my usual 100%

My question to Ted and Uniquemand is, in doing a dating drill, besides the auditors skill level, do you think the coach or in session, the pc, plays a part in the results which will be obtained with an E-Meter? Based on my experience with Paul, I feel that this is so.
Lakey
 

RogerB

Crusader
Of Course it Does

I had an experience doing the E meter dating drill at my local Class V Org about 19 years ago in 1998 or 1999. I wasn't getting anywhere on the drill and a veteran supervisor, Paul, came to help me probably because I was on the grid to graduate that week and was not going to make it without his help. Paul was a Class VI, I believe, and really knew his stuff!

We started doing the drill and he flunked me immediately for out TR's, He was firm, no comm lag, though assertive, but in his own way he was kind and not making me wrong. After my TR 1 improved, I started to get reads and was getting the proper read about 70% of the time. He then had me read something by LRH about "projecting one's intention". After doing this, I started getting close to 100% success, maybe 90% and the few times I flunked, he was able to accurately spot some minor outpoint I made in projecting my intention. In all of his flunks, they were instant and he told me instantly what I had done wrong in a firm but pleasant way. He himself had 100% certainty in the drill materials and firmly believed that if done right , the drill would work 100% of the time.

I started getting an accurate instant read on 100% of my dating questions. We then went for my pass and he scribbled a date on a piece of paper and I began asking the questions. After about ten of the before 1950?, after 1950?, was it 1950? type questions, I found the exact date with no flubs. He then scribbled another date and within 10 more questions with no flubs I found the second date. He then gave me a pass on the drill. With ten hits done two times in a row, that was 20 perfect questions in a row plus about 5 perfect hits in practice right before starting the drill. Getting 25 instant reads without a hitch, I not only passed the drill but believed in the tech.

Later on, when I tried the drill on others, I could not always get 100%. Depending on the coach, a guy who used to yield the correct read maybe 15% of the time was now up to 60% and a person who I liked who used to get maybe 50% was now getting about 85 to 90%. Paul came in to coach me again and with him, I still got my usual 100%

My question to Ted and Uniquemand is, in doing a dating drill, besides the auditors skill level, do you think the coach or in session, the pc, plays a part in the results which will be obtained with an E-Meter? Based on my experience with Paul, I feel that this is so.
Lakey

Of course it does. Ever read that little line about an ARCX needle looks like an FN and floats without reaction?

If you have an out-of-ARC, out of session, or screwed up case scene with lots of suppress, inval, avoid etc., or withhold on the case, reads will be subdued if not crushed.

Your trick as a student or auditor is to ensure the coach, and certainly the PC, is in session with you and in ARC.

Rog
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
Well, I'm no expert, actually, on meters, other than in theory, but my POV is that if the person is trying to do something other than listen to the question, look at what his answer is, and then report it, the meter can be fooled, and so can the auditor. The meter doesn't detect truth or falsity, it detects change in resistance to the current passing through them. The theory, as I understand it, is that this resistance changes due to emotional response, primarily due to "fight/flight" instinct about confronting something which the person normally suppresses some or all memory of. The dating drill relies on the fact that the person is deliberately withholding something from the auditor/trainee, and therefore, some coaches may invest nothing in the drill, and they don't offer much, if any response, because they are not engaged. As with any REAL process, if the person is not "engaged" (in session), nothing much will happen, and the meter responses are likely to be due to him farting more than they have anything to do with actual case being uncovered.

That's my two cents.
 

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
Short Answer: Yes!

I had an experience doing the E meter dating drill at my local Class V Org about 19 years ago in 1998 or 1999. I wasn't getting anywhere on the drill and a veteran supervisor, Paul, came to help me probably because I was on the grid to graduate that week and was not going to make it without his help. Paul was a Class VI, I believe, and really knew his stuff!

We started doing the drill and he flunked me immediately for out TR's, He was firm, no comm lag, though assertive, but in his own way he was kind and not making me wrong. After my TR 1 improved, I started to get reads and was getting the proper read about 70% of the time. He then had me read something by LRH about "projecting one's intention". After doing this, I started getting close to 100% success, maybe 90% and the few times I flunked, he was able to accurately spot some minor outpoint I made in projecting my intention. In all of his flunks, they were instant and he told me instantly what I had done wrong in a firm but pleasant way. He himself had 100% certainty in the drill materials and firmly believed that if done right , the drill would work 100% of the time.

I started getting an accurate instant read on 100% of my dating questions. We then went for my pass and he scribbled a date on a piece of paper and I began asking the questions. After about ten of the before 1950?, after 1950?, was it 1950? type questions, I found the exact date with no flubs. He then scribbled another date and within 10 more questions with no flubs I found the second date. He then gave me a pass on the drill. With ten hits done two times in a row, that was 20 perfect questions in a row plus about 5 perfect hits in practice right before starting the drill. Getting 25 instant reads without a hitch, I not only passed the drill but believed in the tech.

Later on, when I tried the drill on others, I could not always get 100%. Depending on the coach, a guy who used to yield the correct read maybe 15% of the time was now up to 60% and a person who I liked who used to get maybe 50% was now getting about 85 to 90%. Paul came in to coach me again and with him, I still got my usual 100%

My question to Ted and Uniquemand is, in doing a dating drill, besides the auditors skill level, do you think the coach or in session, the pc, plays a part in the results which will be obtained with an E-Meter? Based on my experience with Paul, I feel that this is so.
Lakey


Certainly!

Auditing is a co-operative effort. By extension, training should be a co-operative effort.

As an auditor, I always want my pc's to win, and win big.

As a pc, I want my auditors to win big. I am a Cadillac pc.

As a student, I want other students to win big.

With enough experience, like your Paul above, a being gets familiar with meter quirks that are not covered on meter drills. Here's one: In finding birthdates, I often run into not the physical universe date of birth but the moment the student decided to be born. I work with beings who have bodies, not with bodies that have beings. :coolwink:
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
I work the other way around, Ted, since I don't believe that the being pre-exists the body, or exists after the body is no longer capable of maintaining it.
 
I work the other way around, Ted, since I don't believe that the being pre-exists the body, or exists after the body is no longer capable of maintaining it.


That's fine U, you've a right to your opinion. Just don't let your preconceptions effect the pc. It's his considerations that are to be addressed in a session, not yours. The body is a via of communication. Hence Hubbard's advice: "auditing is for the pc".

Equating a pc with his body can be very invalidative. Ask any woman about men being interested in her body and not herself.


Mark A. Baker
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
Mark, I simply ask the questions, get the answers, and start and stop the session. What the person views is their business, not mine. I never indoctrinate anyone to look for past lives, and it's never happened that they've found them, and yet their "case condition" seems to resolve without viewing anything like that.

I don't think that the being IS their body, I just don't believe they existed prior to the body, or that they will exist when the body ceases providing the computing environment.
 

RogerB

Crusader
Another LRH Error

There is another error in LRH's effort at theft of the Berner's study materials.

Hubbard, of course, was very loose with his use of language; often very imprecise and prone to generalities that led others into error. Some of these generalities were later corrected, and some not.

Here is an example.

In Hubbard's "Study Tech" he states that M/Us cause dope-off, anaten, unconsciousness and yawning. You'll also note that he generically refers to M/Us when he is speaking about the words you read/hear that you don't quite get that cause this phenomena.

This is imprecise and actually in error.

M/Us don't actually cause yawning, anaten, dope-off, etc.

A word that you have an incorrect or misunderstood meaning for works in the mind the same way as a word you have the correct meaning for. It simply slides in and gives you an erroneous or mistaken concept of what you have just read or heard. And then you behave as an idiot, :yes: but you do so alertly and without any impact on your awareness.

It's the non-comprehended or non-defined words or words for which you do not have a clear concept of meaning for that knock you out! This is a very different matter and subject than mis-understood words/definitions.

The underlying reason for this is that you have an intention or goal when you are studying, and that is to comprehend (and learn) that which you are studying :yes: And to go past non-comprehended words, symbols or actions; and to go past non-defined or incompletely defined words, symbols or concepts defeats your purpose or goal.

And we know what failed purposes do to a case :yes: . . . and this apart from triggering into manifestation all earlier non-comprehensions and failures to be aware as you had intended.

This is the important issue vis a vis "M/Us" that Hubbard missed and never correctly commented on.

RogerB

 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Brilliant Analysis

There is another error in LRH's effort at theft of the Berner's study materials.

Hubbard, of course, was very loose with his use of language; often very imprecise and prone to generalities that led others into error. Some of these generalities were later corrected, and some not.

Here is an example.

In Hubbard's "Study Tech" he states that M/Us cause dope-off, anaten, unconsciousness and yawning. You'll also note that he generically refers to M/Us when he is speaking about the words you read/hear that you don't quite get that cause this phenomena.

This is imprecise and actually in error.

M/Us don't actually cause yawning, anaten, dope-off, etc.

A word that you have an incorrect or misunderstood meaning for works in the mind the same way as a word you have the correct meaning for. It simply slides in and gives you an erroneous or mistaken concept of what you have just read or heard. And then you behave as an idiot, :yes: but you do so alertly and without any impact on your awareness.

It's the non-comprehended or non-defined words or words for which you do not have a clear concept of meaning for that knock you out! This is a very different matter and subject than mis-understood words/definitions.

The underlying reason for this is that you have an intention or goal when you are studying, and that is to comprehend (and learn) that which you are studying :yes: And to go past non-comprehended words, symbols or actions; and to go past non-defined or incompletely defined words, symbols or concepts defeats your purpose or goal.

And we know what failed purposes do to a case :yes: . . . and this apart from triggering into manifestation all earlier non-comprehensions and failures to be aware as you had intended.

This is the important issue vis a vis "M/Us" that Hubbard missed and never correctly commented on.

RogerB


Roger, absolutely brilliant analysis!! Brilliant separation of m/u phenomena into two distinct types. I do not think anyone on the Board will challenge you. What you write has no holes in it from which to issue a challenge. Welll, you know, on a board of ex-Scientologists, anything is possible and maybe someone will issue a challenge. Your post is an example of "Scio-Logos". You made a scythe like cut in the previously generalized definition of the m/u and separated one thing into two distinct things. Very similar to a world class surgeon cutting out a cancer, getting it all and not damaging any healthy surrounding tissue. Can anything be more intellectually satifying?
Lakey
 

EP - Ethics Particle

Gold Meritorious Patron
Truth revealed!

There is another error in LRH's effort at theft of the Berner's study materials.

Hubbard, of course, was very loose with his use of language; often very imprecise and prone to generalities that led others into error. Some of these generalities were later corrected, and some not.

Here is an example.

In Hubbard's "Study Tech" he states that M/Us cause dope-off, anaten, unconsciousness and yawning. You'll also note that he generically refers to M/Us when he is speaking about the words you read/hear that you don't quite get that cause this phenomena.

This is imprecise and actually in error.

M/Us don't actually cause yawning, anaten, dope-off, etc.

A word that you have an incorrect or misunderstood meaning for works in the mind the same way as a word you have the correct meaning for. It simply slides in and gives you an erroneous or mistaken concept of what you have just read or heard. And then you behave as an idiot, :yes: but you do so alertly and without any impact on your awareness.

It's the non-comprehended or non-defined words or words for which you do not have a clear concept of meaning for that knock you out! This is a very different matter and subject than mis-understood words/definitions.

The underlying reason for this is that you have an intention or goal when you are studying, and that is to comprehend (and learn) that which you are studying :yes: And to go past non-comprehended words, symbols or actions; and to go past non-defined or incompletely defined words, symbols or concepts defeats your purpose or goal.

And we know what failed purposes do to a case :yes: . . . and this apart from triggering into manifestation all earlier non-comprehensions and failures to be aware as you had intended.

This is the important issue vis a vis "M/Us" that Hubbard missed and never correctly commented on.

RogerB


Roger, absolutely brilliant analysis!! Brilliant separation of m/u phenomena into two distinct types. I do not think anyone on the Board will challenge you. What you write has no holes in it from which to issue a challenge. Welll, you know, on a board of ex-Scientologists, anything is possible and maybe someone will issue a challenge. Your post is an example of "Scio-Logos". You made a scythe like cut in the previously generalized definition of the m/u and separated one thing into two distinct things. Very similar to a world class surgeon cutting out a cancer, getting it all and not damaging any healthy surrounding tissue. Can anything be more intellectually satifying?
Lakey

This then clarifies and explains to my satisfaction the phenomena I observed when working with a Japanese girl on KTL and W/Cing! :clap:

Her eyes would roll back in her head and she would go nearly completely comatose on an "MU" - then brighten up almost instantly when the culprit word(s) that were totally foreign to her were found!:ohmy: :yes:

It is the "words for which you do not have a clear concept of meaning for that knock you out!" And I can attest that this is true in my experience and observation.

Lakey's post nails it for me too! Thank you, both and all. :thumbsup:

Mike/EP
 
Top