|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | Max you are quite right that Grade processes and/or their flows were not checked for reads up in early auditing up to 1980 or so. We did get good results doing it that way, but sometimes we got "processes that didn't bite" and much protest and wasted auditing time also.
| + | - |
| − | | + | |
| − | Your understanding of tech is based on what you have read and experienced so I am not here to tell you what is standard, what isn't or why. You are doing a great job with what you know, and we did a great job for 30 years doing it the way you do.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | When "Unreading Questions and Items" HCOB came out, I was in instant protest. How could an HCOB wipe out everything we were trained on, the various instant reads, ticks, theta bobs, change of needle characteristics and so on? And students were tending to take that as new data thought it really cancelled out their earlier training. I had to review that HCOB so I could make sense out of it.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | One thing I did was make a pack on E-meter Instant reads. I put together every statement I could find that LRH said on that. (Thanks to the search feature on the computer). And I would show that
| + | |
| − | pack to an auditor who (god help us) didn't take up the ARCx because it just ticked.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | So I want to quote some of those HCOB's:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | HCOB 23 May 1962, E-Meter Reads, Prepchecking, how Meters get Invalidated "...it is "fatal" to pass an instant reaction on a pc and may cancel fruther reads."
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | HCOB 25 May 1962 E-Meter Instant Reads, "The reaction of the needle may be any reaction except null. An instant read may be any change of characteristic, providing it occurs instantly"
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | HCO PL 14 July 1962 Auditing Allowed "One instant read missed out of 200 can deprive a pc from all gains".
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I think we can agree that if a rud reads per the statement above we would handle the rud.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Now I would like to introduce HCOB 1 March 1964, Meter Reads, Size of. It points out that "all mistakes on goals or situations in Classes V and VI can be traced to a failure to appreciate that metering is different at different levels" Auditor finds goal on list that ticks(1/8th inch) Asks if it's the correctly worded goal. Gets a tick( 1/16") Runs it on the pc. Pc collaspes. Here is the real way it should have been: Auditor finds goal on list that only ticks. Gets in Suppress and Invalidate on the list..." So here you can see that LRH wants the major items to read well. And that when they don't one resorts to rudiment type handling.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Now you don't disagree that when you do listing and nulling the item should read well, I'm sure. It is where it gets applied to Grades Processes that you have your disagreements.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The 1980 HCOB "Checking Questions on Grade Processes" is so clear that it is hard for me to understand why anyone would have a disagreement with it. It explains clearly that if a subjective process doesn't read it won't run and also that not reading stems from three sources: 1) The process is not charged, 2) The process is invalidated or suppressed or 3) Ruds are out in session.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | But when it comes to the handling of students you aren't going to get reads if the pc isn't in session and willing to talk to the auditor.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | To continue with the HCOB I want to quote this paragraph, "One doesn't make a big production of checking as it distracts the PC. There is a system, one of many one can use. One can say, "the next process is (state wording of the auditing question)" and see if it reads. This does not take more than a glance If no read but, more likely, if it isn't charged, an F/N or smoothly null needle, one hardly pauses and adds "but are you interested in it?" PC will consider it and if not charged and the PC in session, it will f/n or f/n more widely."
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Now consider the pros and cons of using this HCOB as compared to simply running everything on a Grade whether it reads or not. (Actually this is tantamount to saying"run every process on a Grade whether the pc is interested or not) Now I know you wouldn't run something the pc wasn't interested in...I know you would not force him to go on. That would be a gross auditing error.
| + | |
| − | PROS
| + | |
| − | 1) If it doesn't read on clearing the command, doesn't read when called out, doesn't read with
| + | |
| − | sup/inv and doesn't read on interest you know right away that re: Auditor's Rights C/S Series 1 that the pc has out ruds or no interest in the first place. It gives you an opportunity to catch a pc who is not properly set up, or an auditor whose ARC with the pc is too low to get reads.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 2) I'd like to point out that Grades are run with Quad Flows, so when "checking the process" we are actually checking the flows of the process, and one flow may be more available to the pc than another. You have a motivator flow, and overt flow just to name two. Most people have both. But someone could be sitting in the overt flow with something he'd done to on the subject, and now, without checking you want to run the motivator flow? He is going to have to dub it in if you ask him to run it. He may pull in track to try to find something to run (yuck).
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | CONS
| + | |
| − | 3) The con is that it takes a more skilled auditor to do it this way, and when you are training students at level 0 you need to be able to train him to do something at all, listen and get case change on his pc. So to get a level 0 auditor to be able to do all of the above may be expecting too much. Gradient scales. If it doesn't go well the level 0 Auditor applies Auditor's Rights and ends off if it isn't going well.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | You can't assume the pc has charge on all flows. I believe level 0 pcs are taught clearing commands, so why not just teach them to clear commands per the 23 June 1980 HCOB on Checking Questions on Grades Processes? I wish I knew what it was about that HCOB that you disagree with, or can't clarify. It does work--I know, I've done it both ways for years each way, and find that Checking Questions on Grades Processes is valid tech.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | MY APPROACH
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | So when I train an auditor, I care most about:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 1) Auditors Rights, especially do not audit over out ruds.
| + | |
| − | 2) Is the pc really set up for session (Per Tech Dictionary F/N VGIs) If I tell an auditor to fly a rud if no f/n, and he takes an ARCx to GI's f/n I would expect him to fly another rud until the pc is f/n VGIs)
| + | |
| − | 3) On subjective processes I want those babies to read, or f/n. (Pardon my slang, but you get the point) If they do neither, even when ruds are in, then pc is on the wrong program. Big red flag.
| + | |
| − | Maybe pc had the ep of the grade, and is no longer intersted in it. To continue to run him would be a wrong program, as he should be on the next one. Maybe he roller coastered a bit, or the auditor is trying to get a read over a missed withhold. Not reading at the level it should tells a c/s a LOT. I want to see those sf's falls or better!
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Patricia Krenik
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :P.S. In case you aren't familiar with "pros and cons" it is like reasons for, reasons against.
| + | |
