OK, so what does workable mean? That previous post was largely a copy/paste from elsewhere, and didn’t address the question. Round two. . . .
A telephone is workable if it does what you expect it to. Namely you pick it up, dial someone’s number, the call goes through, you can talk to and hear each other with minimal noise on the line, you hang up and it disconnects promptly, and it costs what you expect it to.
But how about a process? In broad terms, it does what you expect it to. Now, one has to assume that the expectations are realistic, and made by someone familiar with the field, in this case auditing procedures. Someone completely green who has not been exposed to proper auditing would probably have expectations that are unrealistically low. Such a person might be totally amazed that one short session has permanently got rid of something that’s been bugging her for decades. And some hardened critic of Scn might try to pound in the point that since there are no Scientology-made OTs able to toss planets around then all of Scn tech is a complete con.
So let’s try and get real here. What is a realistic expectation for a process in order that it could receive the Workable! stamp of approval?
My opinion is that all the points I listed above have to be in (auditor training, pc hatting and sessionability, pc case set-up and interest) before one even begins to look at the process in question. Assuming they are in, then what? Pick an option:
• More than 50% of pcs rate the process at 6 or above on a scale of 1-10
• More than 95% of pcs say they benefited from doing the process
• More than __% of pcs rate the process at __ or above on a scale of 1-10
• More than __% of pcs say they benefited from doing the process
• More than 66% of auditors say the pc benefited from doing the process
• More than 85% of auditors say the pc got more than 10 TA divs an hour from the process
• Terril Park gets more complaints about success stories he publishes from that process than 70% of other processes
• . . . .
• . . . .
I’m not going to say one choice is any more accurate than another. My point is that “workable” is too broad a term to have universal agreement here. With the telephone it’s pretty easy. With an auditing process it’s not.
So what does it mean to say that a procedure is workable or it isn’t workable? Or to promote that something is “100% workable on all cases!”
How about when Joe says the process is great (and it was to him) but Sally says it sucks (and it did for her)?
There is always that famous line from KSW1 of asking the auditor when some process appeared not to have worked, “Yes, but what did you really do?” Overall, to get an acceptable result you have to FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS! That applies to anything, whether putting together a flat-pack from IKEA, making a cup of coffee, crossing a busy street safely, or trying to turn off some automated function in Microsoft Word that is screwing up your document.
Some of these things are so familiar that it is not obvious that one is following a specific procedure each time, but one is. Some things are more forgiving than others — coffee can be stronger or weaker, hotter or cooler, but there are limits outside of which the result is not acceptable. There are instructions that go along with giving auditing, and instructions that go along with receiving auditing, and if these are not followed within acceptable limits then the result is not going to be acceptable either.
1. The auditor must be trained up to the level of what he is delivering, and must know how to deliver a proper session, including having the person receiving the auditing be willing to talk about his life and answer the questions as given.
2. The person receiving auditing must know what to do in session when given an auditing command.
3. The person receiving auditing must not be tired, or hungry, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
4. The person receiving auditing must have his attention free enough to run the process being delivered, and not be distracted onto something else.
5. The topic being addressed must be interesting to the person being audited (includes being at the right point on his program if a case program system is in use), and he must be willing to have things happen in session, for things to change, for his considerations to change, for “charge” to come off, to laugh or cry or yawn or belch or whatever else might happen.
6. The process being run has to be relevant to the topic being addressed.
Note that these factors all have to be present before even considering if the process in question is “workable” or not.
Scientology processes aren’t very fault-tolerant. You can cross the road safely despite being hungry and upset, but you can’t have a good session addressing your fear of mice when you’re hungry and have your attention riveted on an argument you just had with your spouse. Insistence on “getting up the Bridge” results in the topic being addressed, the next one on the checklist, being usually of so-so interest to the person being audited, and the process addressing it being of so-so workability. Compared to NO process it is often an improvement, but compared to some procedures available that start off by asking the person being audited what HE wants to address and then addressing only that exact topic with a great process it is not the best. But even a process that is more fault-tolerant still requires some instructions to be followed.
When examining a new process to determine if it is “workable” or not, one must take the above factors into account.
This is of great interest to me because I am presenting new tech, my Rub & Yawn stuff, in many different formats. When people say it was great, I don’t look too closely. But if someone tells me it didn’t do much, I get very interested in finding out exactly what didn’t do much. Did the person follow my instructions, or did they do something else (maybe even thinking they were doing it properly)? Was it perhaps something else entirely that sucked?
We are still in black and white territory here. Either some process is workable or isn’t. I haven’t really even suggested a definition for “workable”. Next post, I think. 🙂