Here is a relevant video from Dexter Gelfand.
This is really neat. In the latest version of Skype, on the menu along the top, click Call > Share your screen. You can choose between “Share selection,” which is a resizable window, and “Share full screen.” You can drag this window over whatever you want to on your monitor, click “start sharing,” and whatever the window is showing will transmit via the usual Skype window to the other person.
I was trying this out with David St Lawrence on the other end. I had a C-meter window open on my monitor hooked up to my fingers with the usual fingertip electrodes, dropped the Skype Share window over it, pressed the go button, and he could then see the meter dial with wonderful clarity. My old computer only managed 3-7 frames per second in and out. I have a new computer, same broadband connection, and it manages to get 20-25 fps in and out of Skype now. This is easily good enough to audit with.
You can check the Skype frame rate from inside Skype: Tools > Options > Advanced > Display technical info during calls. You have to be doing a video call to check the frame rate, of course.
Since the Skype video window is being used to transmit the meter image, the webcam (using regular webcam software, not Skype) can transmit the pc’s face as needed. He merely needs to enlarge and adjust the Skype Share window to cover both the meter and the webcam image of his face.
We also did it the other way around, David with a Virtual Clarity meter, and again the needle/meter display is good enough to audit with.
Using the goview software mentioned a few posts back I recorded both meters together. The sound is OK, but the meter recording is not really good enough for use. You can take a look at it if you want — allow a few moments for the video to appear in the blank screen in the middle.
This is exciting for two reasons:
1. It gives a very easy way for a pc with a computer meter that puts a dial onto the monitor to transmit that image to the auditor, without trying to get virtual meter software to work.
2. Getting a new computer debugged my Skype frame rate problem. I thought I needed to get a better broadband connection than the regular DSL line that I have.
I found it interesting that Rub & Yawn came up in a phone session where Grade Zero was being delivered.
I received the following by email yesterday from one of my Class VI auditor friends. They granted permission for me to publish it.
Recently in a (phone) session with a pc on grade zero we were running various terminals on “Tell me a difference/similarity between ___ and yourself.” When we came to one sister, on clearing it pc said (F/Ning widely), “I handled her with the rub/yawn procedure on the internet.” I acked the win and told the pc I would forward the success.
Rub & Yawn, of course, is a highly effective auditing procedure with many variations and approaches that I developed and put online so people could get free sessions 24/7.
I had a Skype chat with him an hour ago. He gave me permission to post this information.
He says that entirely over the web, he has given three people their entire bridge up through OT3, and one of them NOTs too. I assume he did that in Russian. He says he can do Grades and NED in English too.
He made the point to me, as he stated in his comments to the previous article, that supervising remotely like he does only works with people who are Clear or above. In his experience, people who are not Clear tend to have too many ARC breaks and ethics problems and make too many mistakes to be supervised in this way. The supervisor needs to know the tech well and have a strong intention to help people and increase their ability to improve conditions. He also needs high ARC and an excellent ability to confront and control.
Now, obviously distance learning by people who have had no auditing at all has been done for years in non-Scn fields by reputable educational institutions. But the model is different to the one Maxim is using, so that does not invalidate his conclusion that people need to be in good case shape to do training like this.
I am acting more or less as a relay point here. I have not verified his statements with the persons concerned, have not looked in pc folders, have not checked out their (or his) understanding of the theory involved or ability to do the required procedures.
With that proviso, I still find it impressive that he has accomplished what he has.
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. 🙂
Everybody knows Standard Tech (–Hooray!) is good and Squirrel Tech (–boo hiss) is bad. Right?
Everyone who considers himself a Scientologist wants to be associated with Standard Tech (–Hooray!) as it is good for one’s repute and good for business. I mean, look at all those Hubbard quotes that litter such people’s writings. A Hubbard quote gets instant agreement with that audience.
So you would think Standard Tech (–Hooray!) — SHUT UP! — is easy to define. Well, let’s see.
Hubbard gave many definitions. I don’t want you to think I’m just cherry-picking some that support my point of view and ignore others more prominent that refute it. There are five definitions in the Tech Dictionary. A typical one there is
4. standard tech is not a process or a series of processes. It is following the rules of processing. (HCOB 26 Feb 70).
Sounds great, doesn’t it? But WTF does it mean? What exactly are the rules of processing? Everything in the Tech Volumes and 3000 lectures? –No, no, one might say, don’t be an idiot! There are just a few core basics, like the axioms, the auditors code, auditor plus pc is greater than the bank, things like that. Is there a list anywhere? –Oh no, you have to do the Class VIII course in order to know them.
The Class VIII Course was developed in 1968. Its product per the pack is “A zealot for Standard Tech.” I used to supervise the Class VIII Course at Saint Hill in the early 80s. Anyway, let’s go to the Class VIII course, thanks to the magic of Wikileaks, and toss off some quotes from there. Here are a couple I think are pretty typical:
You say, “Yes, but this PC could sit there for a month without any auditing.” It’s god damn well better he did. If there’re two people who have entirely different opinions on what ought to be done with this case, then either one or the other of those two different people do not know standard tech, because if they knew standard tech they would not have any divergence of opinion.
Standard tech isn’t what I say it is. It’s what works. And what works has already been established. So it isn’t for me to say it’s different. And it isn’t for anybody else to say it’s different either, because we fought for it, and we won it the hard way. Now let’s consolidate it.
It sounds fine when put like that. I’ll use my own wording here, in keeping with the above. LRH had it all worked out by this time. And Standard Tech would be exactly following his instructions up to 1968. Does that sound OK?
Here is one of the purposes of the International Freezone Association, a stalwart of Standard Tech:
IFA Purpose #1: Preserve, protect and promote the exact technology and original workable philosophy of Lafayette Ron Hubbard for future use so it is available for all mankind.
That seems to go along with my definition there. Right?
Let’s zero in on “the exact technology and original workable philosophy of LRH.” At various times over the years Hubbard would say that the technology is all wrapped up. One such time is on this very Class VIII Course. In tape 4 he said, “But Scientology has a very definite body of technical application, which is the only body of technical application in all of the data of Scientology. There are not two ways to do anything in Scientology. In 1966 this was totally summated.”
Oh, OK, so Standard Tech would be exactly following his instructions up to 1966, not 1968. I’m sure you see where this is going.
After 1966 came things like F/N Everything, Running Quad Flows, Dianetic Clear, NED, NOTs, and so on. Should these be considered as Squirrel Tech (–boo hiss) because Standard Tech was all wrapped up in 1966? –Oh no, of course not, don’t be silly, they’re all Standard Tech (Hooray!) too.
All right, so it’s following his instructions exactly, after 1968 too. But Miscavige has brought out the Golden Age of Gack, saying it all follows Hubbard’s instructions, and yet everyone knows it is Squirrel Tech (–boo hiss). –Yeah, but we use 1982 as a cut-off point, as that is when DM got on the line.
I got it now, so Standard Tech would be exactly following his instructions up to 1982 only.
–Yes! Hip Hip—
All right. But in 1950 he described all those marvellous attributes of Clear, including eidetic memory and so forth, and no-one knows anyone who got that out of going Clear. And there’s that stuff about “male clear read” and “female clear read” and a genuine F/N only occurs between TA 2.0 and 3.0, and in Method 4 Word Clearing if you disagree with anything Hubbard said you must have a misunderstood, and. . . . So some of what he wrote is just plain wrong.
–Yes, but everyone knows how to separate out the good bits from the bad bits. You’re just trying to obfuscate the issue.
Hmm. So Standard Tech would be exactly following his good instructions (and ignoring the bad) up to 1982 only?
–Yes. Right. Hooray!
Now, if you poke around online a bit, you’ll see that Hubbard didn’t originate it all. For example, the Berners developed Study Tech over many years and Hubbard just ripped it off, claimed ownership, and got rid of them fast. And Alan C. Walter developed the first correction list. In these cases, Hubbard just pretended he had originated the tech. There are other similar examples of basic tech developed by others, in distinct contrast to what Hubbard said in KSW about being the sole source.
Similarly, there were HCOBs written by others, supposedly with Hubbard’s approval, which were issued in his name. The old tech volumes showed the actual source of these issues, but the current tech volumes don’t.
So now Standard Tech has come down to exactly following the good instructions (and ignoring the bad), whoever was the actual source although it was called Hubbard, up to 1982 only.
It’s a long way from “the exact technology and original workable philosophy of LRH,” isn’t it?
It seems to me that Hubbard originated tech good and bad, and others originated tech good and bad, and what is generally considered “Standard Tech” is pretty much simply the good tech, whatever its source. That being the case, to worship good tech developed prior to 1982 ONLY is very short-sighted, Luddite even. What about all the good stuff developed in the 28 years since? And good stuff buried by Hubbard for various reasons? And good stuff still to be developed in the years to come?
Self Analysis can be audited easily without a meter. Much of the lower grades are not really that different.
Let’s look at what a meter is used for, assuming that the auditor can read one properly.
Seven meter uses:
1. To see if the main process command gets an instant read. If so, assuming it is a valid read, this is supposed to mean that the pc has reality on the item or question, that he has charge on the item or question, and that the process will run properly.
2. To place items in order of importance by assessing a list for longest read. For example, if assessing Joe? Pete? Anne? gives a big read on Anne, a smaller read on Joe, and no read on Pete, one is supposed to run the process first on Anne, then on Joe, and not on Pete.
3. To show whether or not a process that is ongoing is producing “tone arm action”, i.e., whether charge is being dissipated, or stuff is blowing off, or things are happening. The whole address of auditing is supposed to be in this direction, to get rid of charge or mass, not to uncover interesting significances.
4. To show when a process that has been getting tone arm action is no longer getting tone arm action, or is running down, and is likely to be finished soon.
5. To show the needle phenomenon of a floating needle, which, along with a cognition and very good indicators, is supposed to show that a process or process cycle has ended.
6. To show a blowdown, a sudden discharge of emotional energy or mass. There is a meter drill on spotting blowdowns, and the auditor is supposed to note that whatever is blowing down the TA is hot and likely to be a good source of more tone arm action so keep on it! The auditor is supposed to not interrupt the pc while the pc is having a blowdown.
7. To show a sharply rising TA, indicating a protest or overrun (which is really still a protest).
In brief, 1) To show a read, 2) To show a comparison of reads, 3) To show TA, 4) To show TA tailing off, 5) To show an F/N, 6) To show a blowdown, 7) To show a protest.
Without using a meter, one can still deal with these important items. It does require that the pc is interested in what is going on and willing to discuss things with the auditor.
How to do these seven without a meter:
1. Is the process or item charged? You have to make sure that the pc understands the question and what it encompasses, of course. Then ask if the pc is interested in the item or process. He should learn to recognise early on if something is “hot” or not, and that if it is hot it should be run, even if it makes him uncomfortable to do so.
2. If the pc is interested in running the process, run through the list of items and ask him which one he wants to run first. If he can’t decide between two items then just make an arbitrary choice as it can’t make much difference.
3. In a Rub & Yawn session this is obvious, as the pc will be yawning/sighing etc. while the process or item is discharging and will have stopped yawning/sighing when there is no more discharge occurring. In running processes that are not so intense, it might not be so obvious. But at least the pc should be happily running the process, with things happening that are of interest to him. By “happily” here I mean the pc is glad to be doing it, even if he is sobbing his eyes out.
4. As above. If you as auditor are not sure how the process is going with the pc, ask! How it is supposed to go is that one continues to run a process while it is still producing change in the pc, and stops running the process when it is no longer producing change in the pc.
5. As the process is winding down, with less and less change occurring in the pc, the pc is supposed to have a cognition related to the area being addressed, and very good indicators, and that is the end of the process. These points should be pretty easy to spot without a meter.
6. The auditor needs to be aware of the pc while the pc is running the process. If the pc is working something out or undergoing a brief period of personal revelation, and not saying anything at that moment, the auditor should be aware of it and not continue with the next auditing command just because the pc isn’t saying anything.
7. If the pc is protesting an auditing action, the pc needs to communicate this to the auditor! In an ideal situation, a super-perceptive auditor would pick it up anyway from the pc’s indicators, but it is usually far simpler for the pc to stay in comm with the auditor and originate if the process is not going well.
Repairs and correction lists
The auditor reads out the line to the pc. The pc considers it and says something aloud related to the line. Basically either no; or yes, blah blah blah. The auditor then takes up the item as applicable. And so on.
If there is a more complex repair needed, then it may be beyond the scope of what can be done with standard Scn, unmetered style. An effective repair might involve a higher-classed auditor, maybe a face-to-face metered session, maybe a remote metered session, or maybe even a different unmetered procedure that is not standard Scn at all but is still very effective at repairing Scn sessions.
OK. Additions and comments welcome.
1. Barrier: It’s not endorsed by every tech opinion leader. Handling: Screw ’em. Progress marches on. Are you man or mouse? Etc. etc. (This could be better worded!)
2. Barrier: I’m not familiar with Skype | No headset | No webcam. Handling: Telephone a friend with Skype and get talked through the (simple) download and installation. You can use Skype without a headset and webcam. Then get a headset and have the friend talk you through getting it working if needed. Then get a webcam. Then just chat to people, no auditing, until you are happy using Skype generally.
3. Barrier: I’m not happy about metering over Skype. Handling: Drop the meter. Do auditing unmetered.
4. Barrier: We can do Book 1, Self Analysis, and Handbook for Preclears unmetered, but that’s all. It’s not much. Handling: You can do pretty much all the lower Grades unmetered, actually. It just needs a slightly different approach. See the next post, “Auditing Grades without a meter.” There are also procedures that aren’t Hubbard-standard, but we’ll keep quiet about those for now — wouldn’t want to upset the natives.
5. Barrier: I would like to get auditing, but can’t afford it. Handling: Options: (1) Find someone willing to co-audit; (2) Find an auditor in training and willing to do it for free; (3) Work out some kind of non-cash exchange with an auditor.
6. Barrier: I’m a trained auditor and would like to audit online but need help. Handling: Post questions here or at the Workable Technology Forum. Others may be willing to drill with you, especially prospective distance auditors in the same position. People wanting free auditing should be available to practise on.
7. Barrier: I’m scared of OSA finding out and getting disconnected from friends or family still in the CofS. Handling: How would they find out? Skype admin is completely anonymous apart from your username. Your identity here or on the Workable Technology Forum is anonymous if you provide no personally identifying information.
I’ll add more as I come across them. Feedback and suggestions welcome. 🙂
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. 🙂