6202C14 SHSpec-117 Directing Attention

If you can't easily release an ARC break or easily get a rudiment in, it
is always safe to assume that havingness is out. When the PC's attention is
distracted, havingness drops and the bank tends to collapse on him.

[Details of running Routine 3DXX]

Don't hesitate to check a ruds question twice if you are in doubt about a
read. Be careful; be precise. Don't put looking good over doing a good job.
Put accuracy first. The only person who loses, otherwise, is the PC. It is
the same with being "kind" to the PC or failing to direct the PC's attention
or anything that adds up to no-auditing. And keep the "should have knowns"
cleaned up, and you will never get ARC broken PC's. It is interesting to note
that if you look over an old sec check and find the missed withhold at the
point where the PC went into a past life, you will find one in this lifetime.
It is connected, and it restimulates the past life, and maybe it is a hot one
that got missed by going backtrack. It is true that withholds in past lives
are causing all the PC's real difficulties, but they are handled in 3DXX, not
missed withholds.

The PC never forgives you if you let him give up. If you don't direct
the PC's attention, you will get no gains in session. If you let a PC's
attention wander, that is more productive of ARC breaks than directing his
attention, even if it doesn't seem nice or kind. Your attitude to the PC
(mean, kind, or whatever) doesn't much matter, as long as you are effective.
You don't overwhelm the PC with mood; you overwhelm the PC with inval and
eval. It is not being ladylike or gentlemanly that gives the PC gains. It is
directing the PC's attention, however crudely and badly, and being effective.

The liability of prepchecking and the withhold system [of HCOB 12Feb62]
is that every time the PC comes close to the key withhold, he is likely to get
cross with the auditor. It is an indicator -- the missed withhold mechanism
with a curve in it. You innocently ask the PC, "Who didn't know about that?
Who should have known?", or whatever, get down to "All?" and have the PC irritated. Now you are on the edge of it, that's all. If you don't head the PC on down the alley to face that withhold, you will have an upset PC.

Primary withhold pulling flubs:.

1. The PC natters about Joe; the auditor gets only motivators, thus
letting the PC commit more overts by making damaging statements.

2. Letting the PC give you other people's withholds, that being
interesting gossip. A waste of time.

3. Taking critical thoughts without getting the underlying overts.
This gives no gain.

4. Stenographic auditing. A failure to direct the PC's attention.
It lets his run his havingness down and commit overts of defaming
people.

Critical thoughts are an indicator of overts and can be used to "trap"
the PC into leading into the overts. Fifteen or twenty seconds of listening
to them is enough. Under the withhold system, a critical thought can be a one
question. "All" will get the rest, where you can coax the PC into revealing
the rest. The "one" question is never the question you work hard on; it is
just used to test. This is especially true when it is a critical thought.
You are after all the "done"; the critical thought question won't clear until
you've got all the "done".

The withhold system helps you direct the PC's attention to where it
should be put. But it is still not a rote, robotic action. Put a little
invitation and coax into it, plus a little insistence to look. If you want to
know the answers and you are interested, you will operate much more
effectively. You can meter-date to help the PC to look, because withholds do
scramble or group the track and make it difficult for him to spot "when".
Your rancor, if any, should only be directed at the aspect of the PC's looking
not at his telling you. Even if the meter reacts, the PC doesn't know. In
fact, it is because the PC doesn't know that it reacts. If you imply that he
is deliberately not telling, you put him into a games condition.

Use whatever trickery, persuasion, or skill you like to direct the PC's
attention. But direct it. Get the PC's interest in it, too. If you get an
irregular response to the withhold question, ask the PC if a repetition of the
question is causing an ARC break, because the E-meter has a confusion point.
Data in the bank and an ARC break can both give a response. [Cleaning a clean
will produce an ARC break on the missed withhold of nothing.] A lot of
auditors ran goals and terminals lists up to thousands of items by getting
protest reads on the demand for more items. Commonly, though, after you clean
up the ARC break, in running the withhold system, the PC will have more on the
withhold. The PC gets misemotional with the auditor because the auditor
represents all the people who should have known about the withhold and
didn't. If the PC doesn't get misemotional, it is a sign that you are not
getting anywhere because you haven't hit anything hot. If the PC stays bright
and cheerful through the session and never gets anything that makes him feel
bad or look bad, he is liable to ARC break after the session, feeling that it
was wasted time.

Don't expect the PC to go on a gradient scale of getting better, on the
withhold system. He goes on a gradient scale of looking worse. Life has
begun to loom as a grim, serious proposition. They may go into this curve and
out in twenty minutes, or in four sessions, depending on the beefiness of the
zero question -- how hot a button it is, with how much avoidance in it.

The hotter the question, the more charge there is to be bled. The milder
the charge, the shorter the cycle of action. This cycle is not the usual
processing cycle. It is: "Is alerted; goes down to the bottom; then shoots up
to the top." [See Fig. 7.]

The entire force of an aberration is directed to pulling the attention in
while buffing it off. You don't have to pull the PC's attention to the middle
of any aberration because it is fixed there. Dut every aberration has a
buffer that bounces the PC out again. It is not a clear inflow or outflow.
The mind is actually concentrated on it 100%. So the more you get him to look
in that direction, the paler and worse he will look, until he gets it all
cleaned up. Then you get to the last remnants of it, you really have to help
the PC out, because he is stonied; he just can't force his attention into it.
So letting his attention ride all over the place is letting the PC be the
effect of the withhold and the charge, and he will never forgive you. As the
cognition
FIGURE 7

THE CYCLE OF PULLING A WITHHOLD

[GRAPHICS INSERTED]

approaches, the attention is harder to direct into the center of the
withhold. Given something the PC has really non-confronted at the time, he
will often have some bit of it that he has utterly fictionalized, written
script for, etc. He backs out of all responsibility for it, and, as his
attention gets directed at it, he tends to veer off and gets chargy and
irritated at the auditor. You must differentiate between the PC who is ARC
broken because he is in a games condition with the auditor and one who is
introvertedly ARC broken and snapping at everything. They look quite
different.

If you direct the PC's attention terminatedly to the whole precise
withhold, you will get a fine resurgence; if you don't, the PC will be
miserable because his whole bank is kicking him in the head, because there is
no one helping him hold it down. You have to keep your eye out for the PC's
tendency to go general on you, to never give you anything specific, and to
just gloss over the top of it all. You have to get the PC to look. He has to
tell you when he has seen it, but he will tell you only when he knows. If he
says, "I don't know," just say, "Let's find out; let's look; let's dig a bit." Don't think the PC is upset with you when he is upset with the bank. Emphasize
looking, not telling. The PC will tell you what he can see.

You can clean up a PC who has had some auditing, some sec checking, with
recurring withholds, by getting what withhold kept coming up and using the
withhold system [steps 2, 3, and 4 (When, all and who. See page 186 above.]
used repetitively to discharge the "what" question, or one question] on it to
find what has been missed in it. You can also start from who the PC has
complained about a lot. But, knowing 3DXX, you won't sail in towards a target
that is a terminal. Your zero question should be on doingness, knowingness,
or havingness, not beingness. Probably any terminal that has been located on
3DXX could be moved in on and prepchecked by this system. This hasn't been
tried yet, but those would be the beingnesses to take up, if any.