6210C09 SHSpec-201 Instructor's Bugbear

     An auditor clears as fast as he is bright and as he delivers good quality
auditing, and he clears as slowly as he flubs.  If all is not going well, look
to what is wrong with the auditor, not the PC.  There is nothing wrong with
PCs.  Some PCs require more cleverness on the part of the auditor than
others.  A0pparently, the individuality of life was all attained by goals.
That doesn't mean people are individuals because of goals.  It means that they
are odd individuals because of goals.  A goal is a symptom of individuation.
So each person acts differently in processing.  But there is no goal too
difficult to be found.  If you can discover a goal, "never to be discovered",
why, you have a damned good technology.

     Auditing quality is not "associated with sternness or...  immovability
or ... with being able to repeat the auditing command or [the idea that] "the
auditor must always be right".  An instructor watching half a dozen auditors
may think that he needs a half a dozen new rules to overcome these students'
peculiar difficulties.  Actually, a11 he needs is "a tremendous ability to
detect variation from the standard rule." This variation is sometimes so
clever and well hidden that one never spots it. An auditor can leave the
session on the forward track by leaving the PC at time point A and progressing
to point G as fast as possible.  The auditor is actually leaving the session,
by way of the future time track instead of the door.  The auditor is running
the session process and the PC is still stuck in the first rud that the
auditor couldn't confront and therefore didn't handle.  In an effort to avoid
facing the confusion in a session, the auditor unwittingly refuses to set up a
session.  He ignores and evades some part of the session that he has had
trouble with.  Now the PC is trying to get into session, while the auditor
tries to run [from] the session.

     The PCs who give you the most trouble are the ones who do the least.
They don't explode at you.  They don't walk out.  They are just never in
session and auditing never bites.  They make no forward progress.  The "good"
PC is produced by an auditor who never gets the PC into session enough to ARC
break them.  Everything is all sort of shallow, dusted off but not
investigated, etc.  There was no communication and no understanding present.
The auditor was trying to avoid ARC breaks, so there was no ARC at the outset
and the whole session was an ARC break.

     Standard auditing is the cycle of "asking the auditing question of that
PC who is sitting in that chair, getting a response or answer from that PC,
which is then understood by the auditor and is acknowledged by the auditor in
such a way that the PC knows he ... did properly answer." When this is
interfered with, weirdnesses creep in.  It is a terribly simple cycle, and
"terribly simple people -- such as myself -- don't seem to have too much
trouble with it.  More brilliant people figure their way through...  and
arrive at some kind of a mutated answer to it that produces a no-auditing
situation, and how they manage to do this is the subject of an instructor."
This is the instructor's nightmare.  The instructor must observe the departure
from the simple comm cycle and get the auditor to see what he is doing.  The
instructor has to point out to students their errors "in such a way that they
realize that they are not doing what they should be doing."

     Where do all these oddball considerations come from, apart from goals,
which is a source that we already know about? Man can rise above his
aberrations anyway.  He doesn't have to dramatize his aberrations to the
full.  It is not good enough to say that his goal and his item oppose his
being a good auditor, even though he will perhaps never be fully expert until
these are out of the way.  There is another element, however.  The auditor has
a fixed idea left over from some group or philosophy or activity, about what
is supposed to happen or what he is supposed to do to make something happen
when he audits. For instance, he may have been part of a society which
supposed that there was no reason why you couldn't decide to be anything you
wanted to be and immediately become it.  According to this view, all men were
evil because they couldn't do this. That's rather a familiar one on the
track.  This is a weird way of making nothing out of thetans.  An auditor with
this kind of background operates on the basis that the PC is weak because he
doesn't just make up his mind to go clear and do it.

     Another oddball consideration is, "Why should you ask anybody a question?
They already know and they know you know ...." Wait a minute! Those are the
people who think that everybody knows all about them, to whom every minute is
a missed withhold.  This is the consideration, "Well, that is obvious to me,
so it should be obvious to him."

     Then there is the consideration that the auditor has to control the
session and that that means, "never let the PC originate" or "Never confess
that you didn't understand the answer" or "Never check anything the PC tells
you is out (like a rud)."

     So this auditor is doing a basic not-is of auditing the whole time he is
auditing.  And it will be found that he has never examined his fixed idea.
With this auditor, the instructor must:

     1. Find the fixed idea.

     2. Get the auditor to look at it.

     A person can get the impression of knowing from an impact, so if you have
committed a fantastic number of overts against a thing, you conceive that you
know something about it, but it's an inverted knowingness. It's the total
cycle of individuation," and the PC returns on the reverse curve of inversion,
back to the center of impact. [See pp. 242-242a for a more detailed
description of this cycle.] At this point he "knows" that he knows. But -- ask
him, say a psychiatrist, what he knows, and he can't tell you anything that he
knows. If you kept it up, things would get very interesting, because you would
"de-individuate him out of an obsessed interiorization into whatever he's
doing." You would be reversing the cycle until he again knows he doesn't
know.

     When you "try to teach [such an individual] something to know, ... that
room has already been rented.  It has occupants.  You can't, because he
already knows,"at the level of impact and obsessive interiorization. So you
have to reverse that cycle and convince him that there is something he doesn't
know. This is the guy who greets everything you tell him with, "Yes, I know."
So you say to him, "Everybody hates you," and you will get, "Yes I know....
0h. Now wait a minute! ... Well, I knew if I knocked long enough, somebody
would open that door! Hello!!"

     If you press such an auditor long and well enough as an instructor, he
will eventually cognite either that he "knows or that he doesn't know, and a
new piece of certainty will be added to his auditing." Don't leave these fixed
ideas uninspected by the auditor. Just ask him to inspect his own
considerations about why he is doing, must do, or should do what he is doing
wrong.  Take his cockeyed, memorized answers, acknowledge, and then give the
question again.  Break down his machinery, and he will finally see some screwy
alter-is that he has added into what he really should be doing. Ask him, "What
puzzles you in a session?", and you will get an item of alter-is and
confusion.  It is usually something he has added which wasn't taught.

     "All additives occur in the absence of understanding or the presence of
misunderstanding." Idiocy equals all additives and no understanding.
"Understanding is the reason for no additives....  Misunderstanding is the
reason for ... additives." Know this!

     Misunderstandings get picked up on meters as disagreement, a
no-comprehension of.  Education by disagreement is a fascinating approach.
Hence, while word clearing on a meter, you don't ask,  on spotting a read,
"What didn't you understand there?" You ask for the symptom of the lack of
understanding: "What is the disagreement there?"

     In life, with respect to knowledge, "disagreement occurs after the
misunderstanding." Get the auditor to spot his disagreements, and you will
find his misunderstoods.  If you get him to give you "twelve things in that
bulletin you agree with," you will inevitably get the twelve things they
disagree with.

     "A person cannot do what he does not understand." Increase a person's
understanding (ARC) of what he is doing, and he will do it better. An auditor
is not evil. There is something he misunderstands or doesn't understand about
"the function of the auditor or the cycle of auditing action....  You can't
understand psychiatrists ... because you don't realize that they haven't any
goals. [They] aren't doing anything that you would think they should be
doing."

     A goofing auditor can get really wild in his computations.  You have to
spot it and get him to spot it.  For instance, you could get a computation
like this:

     1. I'm trying to straighten out this PC's mind.

     2. Therefore I have to correct the things that they think.

     3. The only way to correct anything is to change it.

     4. So to change the PC, I have to correct him.

     5. So I have to tell the PC something different every time he says
        something.

"If you do not understand what is going on in a session, you won't be able to
handle that session.  At the bottom of all error is misunderstanding." You
restore understanding of something by deleting the disagreement with it.  Then
you can study it and do things with it, etc.

