6509C21 SHSpec-67 Out Tech

[References: HCOB 13Sep65 "Out Tech and How to Get It In" and HCOB
21Sep65 "Out Tech".]

Teachers tend to say that everything is important. We are in a good
position to select out the important data from all the data that we have.
Someone at the HAS level can't do this. To him, every datum looks as
important as every other datum. The guy at the bottom of the ladder is
drowning in a sea of data that is unevaluated. This is true both in life and
in scientology. The person is already overwhelmed with the confusions of
life, which also overwhelm him with data. So he goes on a retreat from the
whole thing. The hardest thing a thetan has to do, and "the most important
thing that a thetan can recover is his ability to evaluate importances: [to
know] what's important and what isn't."

The value of administration of processing is a different thing from what
is processed. The duplicative question, which is basic to auditing, is "the
examination of the mind for the apparent answer to the question; the knocking
out, then, of this, that, and the other thing, until the individual can take a
look at it and see before him some data that is important." The repetitive
process itself is therapeutic. Repetitive processes "permit the individual to
examine his mind and environment and, out of it, [to] select the unimportances
and importances." The duplicative question is unique to scientology. Other
things work because of this duplicative action. Moreover, to find out what is
important and unimportant, the person has to find out what is and what isn't.
He would get a great clarification of things, because he is being presented
with certain vistas of existence and conditions of existence, and he is
examining them, and he is taking them in, or he is knocking them out. He is
handling existence and reorienting himself.

Someone can get things clarified by getting more data about life from
study. However, as he does this, he is straightening up his own mind, and his
real gain, when the chips are all the way down, largely depends on the
auditor. Someone who is drowning in the sea of life gets a repetitive command
from an auditor and as-ises various confusions. The PC's statements on the
question are handled and as-ised. Those statements are then acknowledged by
the auditor, making a full cycle of the situation. Only then can the PC get
up to a point where he himself might, all by himself, confront his own mind.
Only when he's got his mind straightened out can he really benefit from new
data. He's got his own mind and life so mixed up that he has completely forgotten what a mind is all about, and in a large majority of cases, people aren't even aware that they have minds. At best, they think that they are minds, and perhaps that they have souls. Saving oneself seems too egoistical, so one saves one's soul.

Man is at effect. He looks for the one-shot clear, or "enlightenment"."
It's not that scientology is slow. It's that Man has gone so far down. "But
the big gains aren't so much at the top. They are at the bottom -- getting
started. These gains are startling. Just getting the idea that there is a
road out can be a big win. The individual has had a lot of loses on this
line. To him, scientology is like a straw in the ocean. Helped by an
auditor, the person can look at himself and life and make more gains. It is a
lone ladder, contrary to the general idea and desire for a fast way to the
top. The person makes his first real gains on coming to realize that there is
a road out.

So there is a dependency on:

1. The disseminator.

2. The intro lecturer.

3. The course supervisor.

They all perform vital functions, and they can produce more dramatic results
than you would ever expect, being used to auditing as the way to get changes.
The changes on the chart are made in session, but the biggest mistake you
could make would be not teaching scientology and not disseminating.

People in society are very confused and distracted. One of the soundest
ways to reach them is to talk about communication and telling them that
scientology exists and, as their friend, is interested in helping them. You
tell a person that if he could communicate to his environment better, he could
handle it better. You tell him that if he were to talk to his wife, it would
come out better. The only dicey thing there, is that he has been punished,
perhaps, for communicating, so it might be difficult along the way.

Dissemination and teaching lines can be a bit wobbly, but if the
individual makes some gains, he will still do OK. But auditing lines can't
afford to be wobbly. When the person gets to auditing, that is where there is
no room for shakiness or flubbiness. Now, tech is tech. The comm cycle has
to be good. The questions have to be understood by and acceptable to the PC.
They must also be answered [and acknowledged]. Up to the point of getting the
person in session, it is debatable exactly what the correct technical action
(in disseminating to him) is, because you are disseminating into such a
confusion: life as it exists. It is still debatable what it is best to
lecture to people about. A common denominator is that lecturing about
communication is a good idea. But auditing isn't debatable. It works with
precision, if it is applied with precision. There must be no GAE's in
auditing. There is leeway in dissemination but not in auditing, which must be
standard. All troubles in auditing stem from auditor goofs. So don't butter
up a nattery PC. Pull his withholds.

The ability to observe and tell whether what is being done is right or
wrong is harder to do in auditing than in disseminating or in course
supervising. The auditor can make tiny mistakes that upset the PC, so that
the PC acts up. The casual observer would say that it is a difficult PC, when
in fact it was auditor goofs. You have to be a good auditor to observe good
and bad auditing. You will get some gain (30% to 40%, of potential) even out
of bad auditing just by duplicative questions and by the fact that someone is interested in the PC. However, full gain only comes from precise right auditing.

What we mean by "out tech" is "not getting the whole, 100% gains
available on every PC," not just obvious goofs. Out tech is what is happening
when the fine points of auditing are missing and when what really goes wrong
with cases is not understood. When there is out tech, the auditor is, to be
sure, sitting there giving the auditing command, but he is making lots of
goofs with it.

What does it take to make a good auditor? First, we have the GAE's [See
HCOB 21Sep65 "Out Tech"]. There are only five GAE's:

1. Can't handle and read the E-meter. He doesn't see reads. He
overcompensates when bringing the TA back to Set, giving falsely
large amounts of TA action.

2. Doesn't know and can't apply technical data. This used to be "Can't
read and apply an HCOB." This also includes non-duplication of CS's
and not knowing that you haven't done what you were supposed to have
done.

3. Can't get or keep a PC in session. This is very often the case. The
PC's attention is on something other than the auditing. You have to
be able to see when the PC is not in session, distracted, etc. There
is a little body of technology in this area. You have to get the
PC's attention by finding out what it is on and as-ising it. Note
and find the ARC break, PTP, or missed withhold, and handle it. The
auditor who would try to audit a PC whose attention is elsewhere is
applying tech to nobody. The most obvious and silly version of this
mistake is where no one got the PC an auditor, despite the PC wanting
and having paid for auditing. Or the auditor is so wedded to form
that when the PC comes in already in session, the auditor carefully
takes the PC out of session, in order to start the session!

4. Can't complete an auditing cycle. This accounts for the PC who itsas
obsessively. This PC has been prematurely acknowledged in life or in
auditing, and this has happened so much that he feels as though he
has never been acknowledged. E.g. a kid says, "Mommy, I just had a
great idea ... ," whereupon Mommy says, "That's wonderful, dear."
Failed acknowledgment and a host of other errors will also give rise
to obsessive itsa, such as not asking the question, not
acknowledging, Q and A, etc. There are hundreds of ways to stop an
auditing cycle. One is not to start one, as when the auditor just
doesn't give the command. The auditor can always polish up his comm
cycle and make it better, but when it is fouling up the PC, it is
grossly out, with Q and A, no question, no ack, etc.

5. Can't complete a repetitive auditing cycle. Auditors used to have
immense trouble just asking the same question repetitively. The TR's
and Op Pro by Dup were developed to handle this inability in
auditors.

As an auditing supervisor, these are the things to look for, not aspects of
the auditor's case. Don't audit the auditor, as a first action. After you
find the GAE, maybe the auditor could be audited, say, on his missed
withholds.

There are really only four [actually six] things that can be wrong with a
PC:

1. The PC is suppressive. A suppressive is someone who doesn't get case
gain, because he has continuing overts, not because auditing wasn't
applied well. Only about 2 1/2% of PCs are suppressive. It is very
hard to get this PC to give up the overts or to be made auditable for
real case gain. About the only way in which we can do it is with
power processing. Occasionally, someone can be over-audited so far,
especially on R6EW, that they thereafter get case gain and will act
slightly suppressive. They have to be rehabilitated. But a true
suppressive has never had any case gain or TA. He is continually
committing little overts, because to him, everyone is an enemy. Each
individual is an "everyone" to the SP, who is busy fighting
everyone. The SP is a "paranoid" who doesn't change. Institutional
cases are all PTS's or SP's. That is why LRH has said, "Don't fool
with the insane." He didn't know exactly why, but now we know. The
psychiatrist is professionally a PTS.

2. The PC is PTS. The PC who is PTS roller-coasters in auditing. This
is the psychiatrists' "manic-depressive" case. He feels good after
auditing and then feels bad. The paranoid or catatonic who doesn't
change is the suppressive. A PTS doesn't have to see the SP between
sessions. He only has to think, "What will Joe think about this?" or
"What would Joe say?" The SP could be 10,000 miles away. Ethics
officers sometimes have trouble finding the SP, but there is one on
the case. The SP speaks in generalities, which puts up a fog, making
the SP hard to find. If you audit the PTS and get him better, the SP
will do something to destroy him, so it is dangerous to audit him.
If you give a PTS too much gain, the SP will either commit suicide or
murder him. Most of our troubles have come from auditing PTS's, who
then "threaten" the SP, who then incites the PTS and others to cause
our problems. You have to find the right SP. Finding him gives a
very positive result, not just a tiny change. When you correctly
spot the SP in a PTS's case, the PTS lights up like a spotlight.

3. The PC is ARC broken.

4. The PC has a PTP of long duration. This includes hidden standards.

5. The PC has a withhold or a misunderstood word. The misunderstood
word is just a withhold of understanding.

The PC is withholding himself from the understanding, or vice versa.

6. The PC has continuous withheld overts. This makes the PC a
suppressive.

The eleven items discussed in this lecture [i.e. 5 GAE's and the 6 things
that can be wrong with a PC, given above] are the only things that will act as
barriers on a case. "Processes are things that work, if these six things
aren't out" with the PC, and when auditors don't have GAE's. If they don't
work, one or more of these is why. That is all that drives tech out. A D of
P who doesn't look at these barriers to processing can't make anything work. If
these [eleven] reasons why processing doesn't work are OK, almost any process
will work, unless it is overrun. In other words, the only other reason why a
process doesn't work is that it has worked all the way to a result and it is
done. Overrun is

either a problem or an ARC break. [Hence in fits into the above schema.] If
the five GAE's are not present, then, if the case is not progressing, 1-6 are
present. You can just assess these six things and find out what is wrong with
the case. So these things are the points of out tech. "The whole environment
is trying to feed [the CS] different data than these." Analysis of out tech
would result in getting tech in, by not allowing GAE's and by detecting and
handling the things that are wrong with PCs.

A person's case is helped by the fact that, as he advances, he becomes
more and more capable of selecting importances. "As you get on up the line,
the selection of importances becomes more and more an ability that is easily
practiced."