Emeter Havingness question

Flag-2005

Patron with Honors
I have had this conversation many times before but all within the course room so it quickly gets squashed.

E-meter sensitivity and how it works.

You do a body motion and squeeze the cans to get a 1/3 drop.

Why?

So the needle is not wild in session and will not easily go off the dial from body motions?
Or because it is reflective of case at that moment and it works out that you can see reads more easily?

But are we measuring his largest most likely body motion for the coming session or how is his squeeze, a body motion reflective of his case at the time?

So how is a can squeeze reflective of havingness?

To find a havingness process you squeeze and note the size, run the havingness 8-10 times or whatever and ideally the same squeeze should increase the size of the needle movement.

Why?
Is his havingness up and so he now squeezes harder and so the larger swing?
Or the larger swing at that same sensitivity means his case has less resistance and so the needle is looser?

Who thinks what? Or maybe its only me with this issue?

note: I write this becasue the VAST majority of FSO interns do not complete their internship becasue of non-perfect can-squeeze. Basically if you start the session and the pc takes four squeezes to get it exactly you have failed that video. Even if you get a perfect session.

So the pc takes four squeezes to get it and from that point the auditor is thinking I failed already and tries to end the session as fast as possible because the video is a flunk. It even gets this bad. - 4 squeezes, tired hungry? No!

deep breath and let it out... LFBD.... Auditor says, 'sorry not enough metab' and gets the pc out of the chair to take a walk get a drink etc. All for the case of a passing video. FSO short sessioned PCs now know why!
 

Emma

Con te partirò
Administrator
I have had this conversation many times before but all within the course room so it quickly gets squashed.

E-meter sensitivity and how it works.

You do a body motion and squeeze the cans to get a 1/3 drop.

Why?

So the needle is not wild in session and will not easily go off the dial from body motions?
Or because it is reflective of case at that moment and it works out that you can see reads more easily?

But are we measuring his largest most likely body motion for the coming session or how is his squeeze, a body motion reflective of his case at the time?

So how is a can squeeze reflective of havingness?

To find a havingness process you squeeze and note the size, run the havingness 8-10 times or whatever and ideally the same squeeze should increase the size of the needle movement.

Why?
Is his havingness up and so he now squeezes harder and so the larger swing?
Or the larger swing at that same sensitivity means his case has less resistance and so the needle is looser?

Who thinks what? Or maybe its only me with this issue?

note: I write this becasue the VAST majority of FSO interns do not complete their internship becasue of non-perfect can-squeeze. Basically if you start the session and the pc takes four squeezes to get it exactly you have failed that video. Even if you get a perfect session.

So the pc takes four squeezes to get it and from that point the auditor is thinking I failed already and tries to end the session as fast as possible becasue the video is a flunk. It even gets this bad. - 4 squeezes, tired hungry? No!

deep breath and let it out... LFBD.... Auditor says, 'sorry not enough metab' and gets the pc out of the chair to take a walk get a drink etc. All for the case of a passing video. FSO short sessioned PCs now know why!

I always thought that Havingness Processes were supposed to key the PC out and therefore you get a looser needle.

These days I think its because the PC just squeezes the cans harder to get the hell outta there! :p
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
I see the can squeeze as a quick and dirty way to get an approximate sensitivity setting. If you must use a meter, then you want the needle readable. Too high a sensitivity and you can't keep it on the dial; too low and you can't see reads. So mid-session if it flops about too much you reduce the sensitivity, and if you can't see any reads you turn it up. As long as you don't do it in the middle of an assessment where you are trying to compare sizes of reads, no biggie. Except in the CofS, which ever since EM Drill 5RA came out has gone batshit crazy on the subject and insisted that EXACTLY one third of a dial drop (on an imprecise procedure--a variable can squeeze) is the ONLY sensitivity for that session.

Can squeeze as a measure of havingness? When I was in, I never could really understand that. Looking at it now, I think it is that the can squeeze is harder when hav is up, but it feels the same to the individual. I don't think it is any more complicated than that. Or maybe the pc feels better/worse after a particular hav process and knows he needs to squeeze the cans more/less the second time to get the desired result. Or you might get stuck with a havingness process every session of "Look around the room and find an emotion your big toe isn't putting into a room object." :)

Paul
 

Royal Prince Xenu

Trust the Psi Corps.
I never associated can squeezes with havingness.

I often required more then four squeezes to start a session. There would be the inevitable paper towel, cream, etc., and I would just say "F it, I'll go wash my hands." Then a single squeeae would usually be adequate to start session.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
I never associated can squeezes with havingness.

I often required more then four squeezes to start a session. There would be the inevitable paper towel, cream, etc., and I would just say "F it, I'll go wash my hands." Then a single squeeae would usually be adequate to start session.

And then, as your hands dry out over the course of the 'session', what's the needle/TA reaction?

Zinj
 

Pierrot

Patron with Honors
So how is a can squeeze reflective of havingness?

To find a havingness process you squeeze and note the size, run the havingness 8-10 times or whatever and ideally the same squeeze should increase the size of the needle movement.

Why?
Is his havingness up and so he now squeezes harder and so the larger swing?
Or the larger swing at that same sensitivity means his case has less resistance and so the needle is looser?

Who thinks what? Or maybe its only me with this issue?

note: I write this becasue the VAST majority of FSO interns do not complete their internship becasue of non-perfect can-squeeze. Basically if you start the session and the pc takes four squeezes to get it exactly you have failed that video. Even if you get a perfect session.

So the pc takes four squeezes to get it and from that point the auditor is thinking I failed already and tries to end the session as fast as possible because the video is a flunk. It even gets this bad. - 4 squeezes, tired hungry? No!

deep breath and let it out... LFBD.... Auditor says, 'sorry not enough metab' and gets the pc out of the chair to take a walk get a drink etc. All for the case of a passing video. FSO short sessioned PCs now know why!

the first definition of Havingness gives you the key : "HAVINGNESS, 1. that which permits the experience of mass and pressure. (A&L, p. 8)"

You calibrate the sensitivity so that when the person experiences a mass and a pressure it gives you a Fall - whether the person experiences the mass in his inner (mind) or outer (physical universe) world. So now you calibrated it and you have one unit of havingness you can assess all the subsequent reads against when adressing the mind.

So you have one little problem, which sheds some light on the difficulties stated in your "note" above - you have 3 variables, i.e. the sensitivity knob setting, the state the person's havingness is in, and the amount of the pressure on the cans at each squeeze ... That makes the sensitivity setting a bit awkward

Try this - gently and very slowly squeeze the cans and don't stop increasing the pressure. (I hope your cans are sturdy and if you're using the asparagus ones you emptied those so you don't have vegetables on your ceiling)

You'll notice that even though you keep on increasing the pressure on the cans at some point the needle stops falling and starts to rise instead, even though you still increase the pressure. Adjust the sensitivity knob to have a fall at this point.

So now you have one variable left - the level of havingness of the person. That's cool, this is what we want. You might notice that when you repeat the squeezes the fall might change, which is fine as well, as doing so the subjective experience of mass and pressure does change. Don't overdo it as squeezing cans on and on is not a recommended havingness process, it would be better to shake hands instead - a strong or a limp handshake gives away the havingness of the person you meet, it's a very known and usable "havingness checking" process in the business world ;-)

As an experiment you could try also this - pick up solo cans in your left hand. Then in your right hand pick up a "not connected to the e-meter" can. Squeeze slowly the not-connected can and keep on squeezing (as above). You'll notice the needle will start to fall at some point and as you continue squeezing stop at your havingness point, then start to rise. That should give a fall as well. You might notice a difference in the needle pattern and characteristic when it produces the fall, as now the body motion is separated from the havingness test.

You could also push against a wall holding solo cans and see how much havingness you have in the physical universe, lol. That will change as well, and I wish you all the best on your road, as Auditing "is a game of exteriorization versus havingness"
 
Last edited:

Royal Prince Xenu

Trust the Psi Corps.
And then, as your hands dry out over the course of the 'session', what's the needle/TA reaction?

Zinj

I was a shocking pc, the more I tried to concentrate on an answer, the sloppier became my hold on the cans to the point that I even dropped one. I would much rather electrodes strapped under gentle pressure to my forearms because I'm so fidgety as a pc.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
I was a shocking pc, the more I tried to concentrate on an answer, the sloppier became my hold on the cans to the point that I even dropped one. I would much rather electrodes strapped under gentle pressure to my forearms because I'm so fidgety as a pc.

Or, switch to a 'Magic 8 Ball' :)

Zinj
 

Moonchild

Patron with Honors
I was a shocking pc, the more I tried to concentrate on an answer, the sloppier became my hold on the cans to the point that I even dropped one. I would much rather electrodes strapped under gentle pressure to my forearms because I'm so fidgety as a pc.


Yes, I had probs. with holding the cans too. In some sessions I had to hold them so lightly (even after washing my paws and drying them thoroughly) that it became a distraction...trying to maintain a constant and unnaturally light grip so as not to (in my perception) distort the meter-readings.

By experiment elsewhere, comparing my body-resistance to that of others using an Avometer or similar, mine seemed to be lower than average. I hasten to add that such "experiments" were not performed under any tightly-controlled conditions and any conclusions must therefore remain vague, but nonetheless the trend I describe seemed noteworthy.

I too would have preferred electrodes in the manner you suggest.
 

Royal Prince Xenu

Trust the Psi Corps.
Or, switch to a 'Magic 8 Ball' :)

Zinj

Where do I get one with the following messages?

1. Have you had any alcohol in the last 24 hours?
2. Congratulations, your comm-ev is next week.
3. Have I missed a withhold?
4. Thank you, your needle is floating.
5. Would you like to write a success story?
6. Dinner is beans and rice.
7. Don't Q&A me on this.
8. That's DEV-T!
 

Div6

Crusader
I see the can squeeze as a quick and dirty way to get an approximate sensitivity setting. If you must use a meter, then you want the needle readable. Too high a sensitivity and you can't keep it on the dial; too low and you can't see reads. So mid-session if it flops about too much you reduce the sensitivity, and if you can't see any reads you turn it up. As long as you don't do it in the middle of an assessment where you are trying to compare sizes of reads, no biggie. Except in the CofS, which ever since EM Drill 5RA came out has gone batshit crazy on the subject and insisted that EXACTLY one third of a dial drop (on an imprecise procedure--a variable can squeeze) is the ONLY sensitivity for that session.

Can squeeze as a measure of havingness? When I was in, I never could really understand that. Looking at it now, I think it is that the can squeeze is harder when hav is up, but it feels the same to the individual. I don't think it is any more complicated than that. Or maybe the pc feels better/worse after a particular hav process and knows he needs to squeeze the cans more/less the second time to get the desired result. Or you might get stuck with a havingness process every session of "Look around the room and find an emotion your big toe isn't putting into a room object." :)

Paul

I believe that the theory of havingness and can squeezes came out of O\W.
A PC was withholding himself from <things> and as a result gave a tighter needle. After O\W was run, you ran Havingness, which was intended to increase the persons reach in PT, as opposed to trying to hold things OUT of PT.

Get the pc off of compulsive withdraws, allowing them to reach in PT.

OF course I could be completely wrong....
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
I believe that the theory of havingness and can squeezes came out of O\W.
A PC was withholding himself from <things> and as a result gave a tighter needle. After O\W was run, you ran Havingness, which was intended to increase the persons reach in PT, as opposed to trying to hold things OUT of PT.

Get the pc off of compulsive withdraws, allowing them to reach in PT.

OF course I could be completely wrong....

I used to try and figure it out on some kind of mental basis to do with the electronic field and so forth, but eventually settled on the simple what makes the needle fall is more skin on the can. If the person doesn't wrap more hand around the can, then it means the added pressure results in more skin contact. As an example of that, one test I did in 1986--which I assume would show the same thing today--was to hold a pair of cans under my armpits hooked up to a meter, and squeeze a pair of cans that weren't hooked up to a meter. There was no fall showing on the needle, although normal mental reactions did register. So it's a purely physical thing, not a less substantial one.

Paul
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
I have had this conversation many times before but all within the course room so it quickly gets squashed.

E-meter sensitivity and how it works.

(snip)

So how is a can squeeze reflective of havingness?

To find a havingness process you squeeze and note the size, run the havingness 8-10 times or whatever and ideally the same squeeze should increase the size of the needle movement.

Why?
Is his havingness up and so he now squeezes harder and so the larger swing?
Or the larger swing at that same sensitivity means his case has less resistance and so the needle is looser?

Who thinks what? Or maybe its only me with this issue?
(snip)

As to the reasons why, I speak only from observation after many thousands of hours of auditing others (something I no longer do).
I've observed the following;
for any given pc, using an identical "squeeze" (as near as humanly possible) the squeeze-drop increases or decreases in direct relation to the pc's current Havingness. I've changed a pc's Hav process many times because it tightened the squeeze-drop after 8-10 commands and always got a bigger drop and good indicators from the pc on finding the correct (or better) Havingness process.
As to why the length of the drop reflects the Havingness level, I'd suggest that your own summation of "his case has less resistance and so the needle is looser" is close to the mark ie: more Objective Havingness lends itself to less mental mass in restimulation = looser needle. That's just my own take on it, I tend to go with the empirical data of what is observably beneficial for the pc in front of me.
At one time, I twinned up with another ClV1 Auditor and we messed around with this for several hours until we were both thoroughly convinced that the correct Havingness process always increased the can-squeeze drop and a dud process not only tightened the needle but made each of us feel massy.
I hope this helps in some way.
Cheers, Panda
 

dB8008

Patron
...what makes the needle fall is more skin on the can. If the person doesn't wrap more hand around the can, then it means the added pressure results in more skin contact.

Paul

That was my conclusion, as well. I've always thought that the variable contact area of the cans-in-hands was retained in Scientology simply to create more random action on the dial/TA. I know that an e-meter can register many emotional or mental reactions, and can do so in a useful or even necessary way, but claims of it being a precision instrument capable of producing exact, standard results are absurd with the methods used.

If I were making the rules, and still insisted on creating the illusion of precision in an ocean of variables, the electrodes would be fixed to the pc on top of a layer of conductive gel. Sensitivity would have to be set by some other means, but there would be far less noise in the circuit.
 
Top