What Does "Workable" Mean?

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
I put this online in 2010 but for some reason (apparently) never posted it to ESMB. Since the subject comes up every now and then, here it is, in two posts. I haven't tried to translate it more into English from the Scientology terminology.

-----

So what does it mean to say that a procedure is workable or it isn't workable? Or to promote that something is “100% workable on all cases!”

How about when Joe says the process is great (and it was to him) but Sally says it sucks (and it did for her)?

Follow the instructions

There is always that famous line from KSW1 of asking the auditor when some process appeared not to have worked, “Yes, but what did you really do?” Overall, to get an acceptable result you have to FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS! That applies to anything, whether putting together a flat-pack from IKEA, making a cup of coffee, crossing a busy street safely, or trying to turn off some automated function in Microsoft Word that is screwing up your document.

Some of these things are so familiar that it is not obvious that one is following a specific procedure each time, but one is. Some things are more forgiving than others — coffee can be stronger or weaker, hotter or cooler, but there are limits outside of which the result is not acceptable. There are instructions that go along with giving auditing, and instructions that go along with receiving auditing, and if these are not followed within acceptable limits then the result is not going to be acceptable either.

1. The auditor must be trained up to the level of what he is delivering, and must know how to deliver a proper session, including having the person receiving the auditing be willing to talk about his life and answer the questions as given.

2. The person receiving auditing must know what to do in session when given an auditing command.

3. The person receiving auditing must not be tired, or hungry, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

4. The person receiving auditing must have his attention free enough to run the process being delivered, and not be distracted onto something else.

5. The topic being addressed must be interesting to the person being audited (includes being at the right point on his program if a case program system is in use), and he must be willing to have things happen in session, for things to change, for his considerations to change, for "charge" to come off, to laugh or cry or yawn or belch or whatever else might happen.

6. The process being run has to be relevant to the topic being addressed.​

Note that these factors all have to be present before even considering if the process in question is "workable" or not.

Scientology processes aren’t very fault-tolerant. You can cross the road safely despite being hungry and upset, but you can’t have a good session addressing your fear of mice when you’re hungry and have your attention riveted on an argument you just had with your spouse. Insistence on "getting up the Bridge" results in the topic being addressed, the next one on the checklist, being usually of so-so interest to the person being audited, and the process addressing it being of so-so workability. Compared to NO process it is often an improvement, but compared to some procedures available that start off by asking the person being audited what HE wants to address and then addressing only that exact topic with a great process it is not the best. But even a process that is more fault-tolerant still requires some instructions to be followed.

When examining a new process to determine if it is "workable" or not, one must take the above factors into account.

This is of great interest to me because I am presenting new tech, my Rub & Yawn stuff, in many different formats. When people say it was great, I don’t look too closely. But if someone tells me it didn't do much, I get very interested in finding out exactly what didn't do much. Did the person follow my instructions, or did they do something else (maybe even thinking they were doing it properly)? Was it perhaps something else entirely that sucked?

We are still in black and white territory here, i.e. either some process is workable or isn't. I haven’t really even suggested a definition for "workable". Next post, I think. :)

Paul
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
OK, so what does workable mean?

A telephone is workable if it does what you expect it to. Namely you pick it up, dial someone’s number, the call goes through, you can talk to and hear each other with minimal noise on the line, you hang up and it disconnects promptly, and it costs what you expect it to.

But how about a process? In broad terms, it does what you expect it to. Now, one has to assume that the expectations are realistic, and made by someone familiar with the field, in this case auditing procedures. Someone completely green who has not been exposed to proper auditing would probably have expectations that are unrealistically low. Such a person might be totally amazed that one short session has permanently got rid of something that’s been bugging her for decades. And some hardened critic of Scn might try to pound in the point that since there are no Scientology-made OTs able to toss planets around then all of Scn tech is a complete con.

So let’s try and get real here. What is a realistic expectation for a process in order that it could receive the Workable! stamp of approval?

My opinion is that all the points I listed above have to be in (auditor training, pc hatting and sessionability, pc case set-up and interest) before one even begins to look at the process in question. Assuming they are present, then what? Pick an option:

• More than 50% of pcs rate the process at 6 or above on a scale of 1-10
• More than 95% of pcs say they benefited from doing the process
• More than __% of pcs rate the process at __ or above on a scale of 1-10
• More than __% of pcs say they benefited from doing the process
• More than 66% of auditors say the pc benefited from doing the process
• More than 85% of auditors say the pc got more than 10 TA divs an hour from the process
• Terril Park gets more complaints about success stories he publishes from that process than 70% of other processes
• . . .
• . . . .

I'm not going to say one choice is any more accurate than another. My point is that "workable" is too broad a term to have universal agreement here. With the telephone it’s pretty easy. With an auditing process it’s not.

Paul
 

freethinker

Sponsor
I'll go along with what you say as you say it but I believe the biggest gripe anti- Scientologists have with the tech is that it is claimed by Scientology, Hubbard, other Scientologist to give you the ability to pick up a cylinder of steel, inches thick, as a thetan, and have it collapse like the cellophane wrapper of a cigarette pack because the thetan in his native state is that powerful.

The above is from an actual lecture.

It is because of these purported abilities gained that Scientology gains leverage over those who opt to engage in it.

It justifies the outrageously high prices of $275- $1,300 an hour and the self proclaimed right to determine and control you behavior under the guise of ethics and morals.

So how much should people pay for, "Wow, I feel so much better about that!" to a week later not wanting to go to work because life sucks?

Just curious.
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
A very good question Paul. This may sound like a copout (and maybe it is), but my belief is that when you're in the spiritual realm, predictability isn't on the menu. Something can have absolutely blinding results one day, and mediocre or even no results the next. It may even be (laugh if you want) that a certain process works best when the Moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter aligns with Mars.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
So how much should people pay for, "Wow, I feel so much better about that!" to a week later not wanting to go to work because life sucks?

Just curious.

In a free (-zone) market, I suppose the answer would be "whatever the market will bear." Some FZ auditors charge $200 an hour (and get it); some charge $20 an hour and get it; some try for $20 an hour and don't get it; and I know a certain Robot that charges nothing.

The superman pie-in-the-sky stuff has never been demonstrated (reliably) by mortals, so if people continue to believe in it 20 years into the Internet Age more fool them.

Paul
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
A very good question Paul. This may sound like a copout (and maybe it is), but my belief is that when you're in the spiritual realm, predictability isn't on the menu. Something can have absolutely blinding results one day, and mediocre or even no results the next. It may even be (laugh if you want) that a certain process works best when the Moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter aligns with Mars.

It could be a relevant factor, although with almost all processes in use I suspect not. The thing is if someone is using that as an excuse for non-performance of some process I think that's pretty pathetic, unless the process is directly related to astronomical alignments in the first place.

And if you can't imagine a process connected with astronomical alignments (without getting into Aleister Crowley arcana), here's one for you: http://paulsrobot3.com/scn/intextstay/int-ext-stay-by-groups-rd-part-0-signs-of-the-zodiac.htm. Its non-evaluative in that one can scan over the items to see if anything is hot and if so, run with it. If not, dump it and try something else. When I included it as an option it was one of the few non-Scn (useful-seeming) things I could think of that spanned human existence and could be sub-divided into named categories; it wasn't included because I thought it would yield a lot of fruit. That actual page won't lead into the rest of the session: I only included it as an example. If anyone actually wants to run it, start at the beginning.

Paul
 

Terril park

Sponsor
OK, so what does workable mean?

A telephone is workable if it does what you expect it to. Namely you pick it up, dial someone’s number, the call goes through, you can talk to and hear each other with minimal noise on the line, you hang up and it disconnects promptly, and it costs what you expect it to.

But how about a process? In broad terms, it does what you expect it to. Now, one has to assume that the expectations are realistic, and made by someone familiar with the field, in this case auditing procedures. Someone completely green who has not been exposed to proper auditing would probably have expectations that are unrealistically low. Such a person might be totally amazed that one short session has permanently got rid of something that’s been bugging her for decades. And some hardened critic of Scn might try to pound in the point that since there are no Scientology-made OTs able to toss planets around then all of Scn tech is a complete con.

So let’s try and get real here. What is a realistic expectation for a process in order that it could receive the Workable! stamp of approval?

My opinion is that all the points I listed above have to be in (auditor training, pc hatting and sessionability, pc case set-up and interest) before one even begins to look at the process in question. Assuming they are present, then what? Pick an option:

• More than 50% of pcs rate the process at 6 or above on a scale of 1-10
• More than 95% of pcs say they benefited from doing the process
• More than __% of pcs rate the process at __ or above on a scale of 1-10
• More than __% of pcs say they benefited from doing the process
• More than 66% of auditors say the pc benefited from doing the process
• More than 85% of auditors say the pc got more than 10 TA divs an hour from the process
• Terril Park gets more complaints about success stories he publishes from that process than 70% of other processes
• . . .
• . . . .

I'm not going to say one choice is any more accurate than another. My point is that "workable" is too broad a term to have universal agreement here. With the telephone it’s pretty easy. With an auditing process it’s not.

Paul

A process may be very workable for some, and do nothing for
others. Well you could have a starting point that it has to be a reading
item that is addressed. So to judge workable or not one can only
do that in the context some PCs are interested in it.

What is the view of mainstream therapy on whether something is workable?
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
It could be a relevant factor, although with almost all processes in use I suspect not. The thing is if someone is using that as an excuse for non-performance of some process I think that's pretty pathetic, unless the process is directly related to astronomical alignments in the first place.

And if you can't imagine a process connected with astronomical alignments (without getting into Aleister Crowley arcana), here's one for you: http://paulsrobot3.com/scn/intextstay/int-ext-stay-by-groups-rd-part-0-signs-of-the-zodiac.htm. Its non-evaluative in that one can scan over the items to see if anything is hot and if so, run with it. If not, dump it and try something else. When I included it as an option it was one of the few non-Scn (useful-seeming) things I could think of that spanned human existence and could be sub-divided into named categories; it wasn't included because I thought it would yield a lot of fruit. That actual page won't lead into the rest of the session: I only included it as an example. If anyone actually wants to run it, start at the beginning.

Paul

IMO, the "senior process" of LOOKING at whatever is there is pretty reliable. Of course, if you already know what is there, you won't learn much, so it depends on what you're looking at, whether you're interested in looking, and whether or not something is standing in the way of your looking. There's lots of variables that will change whether a person gets "Big Wins" (tm) from a given process one day and not another. That's why I've learned to accept a person no longer being interested in something as an endpont, rather than requiring them to wax rhapsodic on every instruction.

One of the major problems with the way scientology does things is the hype about the benefits (there are benefits, but the hype makes them seem pedestrian), the expectation of Jedi powers, realization of immortality, exteriorization, etc. My measure is: over time, does the person feel better about themselves? Do they engage with their goals and the people in their lives? Does their level of success with regard to their goals and the quality of their relationships improve?

Don't get me wrong, if a client of mine suddenly developed "Phenomenon" (Travolta movie) powers, I'd be quite ecstatic for them, but it's no part of my expectation.

Real progress is not sudden mania and ESP. It happens over time.
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
It could be a relevant factor, although with almost all processes in use I suspect not. The thing is if someone is using that as an excuse for non-performance of some process I think that's pretty pathetic, unless the process is directly related to astronomical alignments in the first place.

And if you can't imagine a process connected with astronomical alignments (without getting into Aleister Crowley arcana), here's one for you: http://paulsrobot3.com/scn/intextstay/int-ext-stay-by-groups-rd-part-0-signs-of-the-zodiac.htm. Its non-evaluative in that one can scan over the items to see if anything is hot and if so, run with it. If not, dump it and try something else. When I included it as an option it was one of the few non-Scn (useful-seeming) things I could think of that spanned human existence and could be sub-divided into named categories; it wasn't included because I thought it would yield a lot of fruit. That actual page won't lead into the rest of the session: I only included it as an example. If anyone actually wants to run it, start at the beginning.

Paul

Thanks Paul. The astrology was a bit tongue in cheek (you may recognise the line from a song), but I do believe there are such things as astrological remedies. Donna Cunningham (one of the best astrological writers out there IMO) wrote a book about them, including chants and flower remedies to use.
 

oneonewasaracecar

Gold Meritorious Patron
No one describes aircraft as 'workable technology.'

No one says we need to 'keep aircraft working.'

Why? Because aerodynamics is mature science. It works.

The term 'workable' in Scientology is an admission that it doesn't work.

That's why there is KSW, because it doesn't work repeatably and predictably.

You need to figure out why it didn't work.

The discrepancy freethiner pointed out is exactly right. It promises one thing and does not deliver it.

If you got into and aircraft to go to Paris and they drove you to Detroit, you'd want your money back.

Scientology obscures this reality from people while they take their money.
 

Sindy

Crusader
Workable toward what end? Can Scientology processes, tech, etc. be considered workable if in the long run, those results are integral in trapping a person? Is a touch assist harmless? In my opinion, anything that gets a person to want more and more Scientology is only workable to entrap.
 
A very good question Paul. This may sound like a copout (and maybe it is), but my belief is that when you're in the spiritual realm, predictability isn't on the menu. Something can have absolutely blinding results one day, and mediocre or even no results the next. It may even be (laugh if you want) that a certain process works best when the Moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter aligns with Mars.

"spiritual" is a copout term which predictably, as shown in your post, leads nowhere.
 
Last edited:

Gib

Crusader
Workable toward what end? Can Scientology processes, tech, etc. be considered workable if in the long run, those results are integral in trapping a person? Is a touch assist harmless? In my opinion, anything that gets a person to want more and more Scientology is only workable to entrap.

you reminded me of what Hubbard said, something like -

"some peoples aberrations don't go away until they are way up the bridge"

what a cop out of "workable" :roflmao:

and what a trap, as you state.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
: What Does "Workable" Mean?

...

Let's clear the word "workable", shall we?

Alas! From the Un-Bridged edition of "The Diabolically Dinky DB Dictionary":


def.

workable - adj:
1. A rationality-stopping word which allows Scientologists to feel good enough about the expensive level they just completed--that they are willing to pay for an even more expensive rundown that fixes the reason the previous one didn't work.
2. A dynamically descriptive word exhaustively used by OTs to convince & sell people on Scientology--instead of just demonstrating that it is workable by simply showing one of their workable OT powers.​
 

Gib

Crusader
Re: : What Does "Workable" Mean?

...

Let's clear the word "workable", shall we?

Alas! From the Un-Bridged edition of "The Diabolically Dinky DB Dictionary":


def.

workable - adj:
1. A rationality-stopping word which allows Scientologists to feel good enough about the expensive level they just completed--that they are willing to pay for an even more expensive rundown that fixes the reason the previous one didn't work.
2. A dynamically descriptive word exhaustively used by OTs to convince & sell people on Scientology--instead of just demonstrating that it is workable by simply showing one of their workable OT powers.​


Great post, and you reminded me of something else. One day I was talking to another scientologist about drinking and drugs, and he said, you know there are several steps on the bridge to handle these things. I was OMG, you're right, still being a true believer at the time.

Like, there is the Purif, (think NarCONan), then there is the SCN DRD, then there is NED, then there is NED for OT's.

What a scam.:angry:
 
Top