Exploring auditing and training over the Internet

Telephone counselling is mainstream

cellphoneTelephone counselling is mainstream. It might not be mainstream in Scientology, but it is in the outside world.

From the Wikipedia article on telephone counselling:

Researchers have begun observing a growing trend in which licensed psychotherapists and psychologists are now seeing at least some of their clients via the telephone. A body of research exists comparing the efficacy of telephone counseling to in-person counseling and to no treatment. A recent study found that more than half of clients (58%) who had experienced both in-person and phone counseling preferred phone counseling. A 2002 study found that phone counseling clients rate their counseling relationship similarly to in-person clients. Phone counseling has been established as an effective treatment for diagnoses ranging from depression to agoraphobia.

Now, I’m not saying that telepathic metering is mainstream, but the idea of doing auditing over the phone or Skype should not be looked on as off the wall. Everybody’s doing it. 🙂



March 14, 2010 - Posted by | Uncategorized


  1. The efficacy of phone counselling as distinct to face to face for licensed psychotherapists and psychologists is hardly 1. going to show any difference in improvement as licensed psychotherapists and psychologists are hardly effective inthe first place. and 2. This is hardly a criteria for auditing ijn the Freezone.

    Using licensed psychotherapists and psychologists as a measure to apply to Scientology Auditing.

    I see this more as a positioning statement.

    And not “everyone” is using phone or skype either to audit. That is a generality evidently designed, it seems to me, to excuse or justify the non-standardness of telephone counselling.

    What is mainstream in the field of mental health really has nothing to do with scientology either. Scientology is not a mental health prtocedure. it is a applied philosophy meant to make the able more able. not ‘cure’ mental health cases.

    PS. I shall await to see if this post gets past moderation. 🙂

    Comment by Michael | March 15, 2010 | Reply

    • I sometimes — not always — wait a while before responding to a reply. It is not usually because I need to gather my thoughts. It is to allow others to comment first if they wish.

      The floor is open. . . .


      Comment by Paul Adams | March 15, 2010 | Reply

  2. Michael — I dispute the blanket statement that licensed psychotherapists and psychologists are hardly effective. Several months ago I started on a part-time course covering mainstream counselling skills and theory, as I knew absolutely nothing about the area. To begin with, I thought their “counselling” involved a lot of evaluation and giving of advice, but I found out that in general it didn’t at all. As for effectiveness, yes, some of it is rubbish, but some of it is surprisingly useful. I’m thinking in particular of Cognitive Therapy, detailed very well in the book “Cognitive Therapy: Basics and Beyond” by Judith S. Beck, the daughter of the subject’s main developer. One can read half of the book for free at Google Books. That book details highly workable procedures for changing behaviour not touched on at all in Scn, or my own developments, for that matter.

    One interesting point you mention here is that Scn is not designed to cure mental health cases, whereas the mainstream professionals work in that field, and there is actually little overlap. The thrust of that Cognitive Therapy book is towards helping “patients,” whereas to my mind most of the many techniques could be applied by an able individual wanting to improve himself. I started adding a Cognitive Therapy module to my RoboCounsellor arsenal, but it isn’t close to being finished yet.

    Positioning? Sure. I was looking for data of comparable magnitude.

    Everyone? At the top of the original article I said phone counselling wasn’t mainstream in the Scn community. But it is mainstream in the outside world, and it isn’t thought of there as strange at all.


    Comment by Paul Adams | March 17, 2010 | Reply

  3. This is an OSA run website to discredit the field, Michael. Don’t bother.

    Comment by Yep | March 19, 2010 | Reply

    • Very observant of you. 🙂


      Comment by Paul Adams | March 19, 2010 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: