6206C21 SHSpec-163 Question and Answer Period

A professional auditor is harder to put into session than a raw meat PC.
He knows more and is more critical (not in a bad sense). Actually, the raw
meat PC is just as critical, but he won't say so. If a professional auditor
is almost impossible to get into session, he has been audited with ruds out.
A professional can be audited to out-of-sessionness faster than anyone else,
because he knows when something is being done wrong.

You can pick up and fish out PC cognitions by tone of voice, or some
irrelevant remark by the PC, which is an appreciation of something. It is not
vital to do this. In fact, you probably shouldn't even do it. It can
boomerang. An irrelevant remark would be when the PC is sailing along and you
suddenly say, "Wow! That needle fell half a dial!" This distracts the PC.
But if you can appreciate what thy PC is doing, he feels more acknowledged.
It's a TR-2 trick. If the PC starts crying and you go in with a hard boiled
or crisp, no-nonsense tone of voice, the PC feels unacknowledged. He needs to
have a certain feeling that the auditor is with him. This is why you will
sometimes hear LRH sounding a bit sympathetic. Your voice should reflect some
comprehension of the mood of the PC so that he will feel that you are with
him. Don't fail to respond to what the PC is doing, hut don't let the PC put
you at effect either. There is a fine line between the two. When in doubt,
keep it simple and by the book.

People have trouble with TR-4 because they don't understand what the PC
is saying. LRH is perfectly willing to be at the effect of the PC to the
degree of properly acknowledging the PC, but no further. Thus, when you
acknowledge the PC by responding to him, he knows that he is having an effect
on you and he will stop trying to produce an effect.

You can make a mistake on this. You can intend to show agreement and the
PC can take it as derogatory, if he is so inclined. A simple acknowledgement
avoids this situation. It is just when you know your tools and know what is
happening so well that, now an top of it, you are free to be appreciative. If
the PC should get upset and start blathering entheta, LRH would tend to ignore
it. He would not even TR-4 it. He would just give the next command. The
above degree of relaxation only extends to TR-2, not to entering chit-chat
into the session.

To the degree that you don't use 2WC in model session, you will succeed
better. 2WC slows down the progress of the session when used in model
session, or any part of ruds. If the PC is all jumped up at the beginning of
session, you could, instead of letting the session handle it, say, "What has
gotten into you?" as part of your R-factor. That way, you would get him
talking to you at least. Then start the session and put some order into his
confusion.

Some pcs waste session time with conversation. You need to establish
control with a good, solid acknowledgement. Pcs will try to take session
control away from you.

On a ruds question, if the PC says, "No," and the meter says, "Yes, you
should acknowledge the meter. Where the PC and meter disagree, forget the PC
and trust the meter. Don't worry about this making the PC wrong, because,
Hell, he's wrong anyhow! There is a trick in this. You are not contradicting him when you say, "That reads." Just pay no attention to the PC's "Yes" or "No in ruds. Only answer the meter, and you will never give the PC the feeling that you are countering what he has just said.

If a PC were to ask LRH, "Have you run CCH's on the instructors, too?",
he would say, "Thank you for asking me. We will now go into end ruds," get
them in, give the PC a break, and do beginning rudiments. This would be a
terrible symptom of out-of-sessionness. The PC is not interested in his own
case. If the PC gives you an irrelevant question, acknowledge it and handle
it, but realize that it shows something is out -- mid-ruds at least. So get
him in session. If he is in session and asks a question, it is generally fine
to answer it. If you did something wrong, never think that you will lose
session control by admitting it. You actually only lose control by demanding
to be right.

It is not unusual for the PC's havingness to be up at session start but
down by the end of session, though this doesn't always happen. This is a
symptom of rough auditing. Unconfidence, ARC breaks, and low havingness are
interchangeable. Havingness goes down in the presence of ARC breaks. When
havingness is up, ARC breaks disappear. If the auditing is at all rough, you
will get a dwindling of havingness. Confidence in the auditor is proportional
to smoothness of the auditing. You want to be predictable to the PC.

Early in a PC's auditing, he tends to be more critical of his auditor
than he will be later. This is symptomatic of a nervous PC who has been
roughly handled in life and earlier auditing. As your PC continues to be
well-handled in auditing, this factor drops out and the PC's havingness will
stay up. Also, as the auditor improves his skill, the PC's havingness will
stay up.

The auditor's tone of voice is not important. It is irrelevant remarks
that matter. You can make a remark without saying anything. For instance,
you may have a surprised tone at seeing a clean needle. That is a bad thing
to do. It all comes under the heading of putting the PC's attention on the
auditor instead of on his bank. Sounding robotic will do the same thing. A
sudden yank of the PC's attention off the bank onto the auditor, environment,
or meter will cause those masses that the PC has been holding away from him to
hit him in the face. You will have a devil of a time digging him out. You
can yank the PC's attention by getting the PC absorbed in question No. 1 and
then, before he answers, asking him question No.2. It is an irrelevant
action. You should neither inform the PC about the meter when he doesn't want
to be so informed, nor withhold information when he wants the information.

The question will come up: "Do you ever use middle rudiments while doing
beginning or end rudiments?" There are situations where it might happen, but
if the auditor has the PC well under control, it shouldn't have to come up.
It is a great relief to a PC who has had Q and A - prone auditors to get an
auditor who just smoothly carries on when he (the PC) ARC breaks and screams
and spatters. He finds that he can trust the auditor to audit him.
Predictability alone will hold someone in session, regardless of what other
actions you take. On the other hand, any unusual solution you adopt makes
auditing seem unpredictable and becomes a curse to you. Predictability breeds
PC confidence and relaxation and it makes him able to go into session. When you add the powerful buttons of the beginning, middle, and end ruds, you can really get somewhere. "Strive for predictability.... The more nervous they are ... the more dispersed they are, the more predictable [and] steady you should be."