How could such a theory be proven in regard to auditing? Given the subjective nature of the experience of auditing, surely it is dubious conjecture at best?
Well, first and most importantly, you will notice I haven't proposed any such tests. My comments serve simply to point out that an hypothesis which purports to 'explain' all the supposed benefits of auditing occur as a result of electrical current flow is fundamentally flawed and non-sustainable. Or, in other words, pure bunk.
... For example: how could a specific auditing session 'with an emeter' be reproduced or duplicated, 'without an emeter'? Impossible. The form and event would necessarily be different. Only the 'place' might remain exactly as it was. ...
Any such results are innately subjective. As with any proposed formal 'testing' procedure in a 'soft' subject, i.e. one highly dependent on subjective factors (e.g. psychology, sociology, etc.) or non-repeatable data. [Interesting note: this years Nobel in Economics was awarded to researchers doing work on data interpretation in such an environment.] Many aspects of human experience simply do not lend themselves to direct measurement.
Generally the best approach to testing in such an environment is to run multiple different tests against a variety of different subjects, allowing for both the conditions being tested as well as an independent group to serve as a control for 'baseline' data.
In this instance, create three groups of subjects; one group (group 1) to experience auditing on a meter, a second group (group 2) to experience auditing off the meter, and a third group (guess) to experience some neutral activity who are to serve as the 'control' for the experiment. Since this last group serves as a data control they must NOT be subjected to auditing, meditation, or any other process or practice intended to produce introspection. Run the same basic processes on the first two groups and check results across all three groups for any noticeable statistical differences.
I know of no such experiments which have ever been
formally undertaken.
HOWEVER, most of the experienced auditors I have known and who had a reputation for getting positive results have audited many individuals both
with and
without the use of a meter. As such, along with other similarly experienced auditors, they constitute an informal data pool with a lot of experience with regard to the results which can reasonably be expected from auditing. The accounts of such experiences conform to there being no difference in results arising from the use of a meter. Admittedly, these are
experienced practitioners who know something of the art of auditing.
The quality & experience level of the auditor also makes for a substantial difference in the results occurring in a session. A poor auditor who relies excessively on his meter is a positive liability as his attention tends to be on the meter not the pc. That same poor auditor, although lacking in basic skills, still may well do marginally better for his pc without the meter as a distraction.
An experienced auditor also who ignores the pc in favor of too much attention to the meter will also get a generally poorer result. The best auditors are well aware of this. Accordingly they treat their meters as auxillary aids not as the primary focus of the session.
Auditing is
intended to be
for the pc. It does not do to leave them in a state where they may instead be wondering what the auditor is doing rather than using session time to address their own issues.
Thus, for a person considering being audited, the smart move is to find a good & experienced auditor with whom that individual is comfortable working. The use of an emeter is immaterial.
Mark A. Baker
