6206C21 SHSpec-162  Model Session Revised

[Parts of this tape are summarized in HCOB 23Jun62 "Model Session Revised'.]

     This model session will make auditing much smoother.  It is remarkable,
in that it doesn't need any extra processes, except for the PC's havingness.
The rudiments here are repetitive processes, asked only as long as you get an
instant read.  HCOB 25May62 "E-meter -- Instant Reads" defines "instant read"
and should be known.  It is really instant: on the end of the last letter of
the last word of the question, item, or command.

If any read seems equivocal, you should check it out.  It isn't true that the
PC, knowing the question, will react before you have said it all.  You are not
auditing a knowing being; you are auditing a no-time reactive bank.  The bank
waits for the entire command and then reacts instantly.  If the read occurs on
"br..." and not on "...k", when you are asking for an ARC break, it is a prior
read, and you ignore it.  It is the read that starts on "...k" that you want.
This is not hard; it's easy.  So be sure you use the meter properly.  The
results are marvellous that way.  Sad to say, ruds done with prior and latent
reads will mess up the PC.  Only ask a question twice or more if it had an
instant read.  If there is no instant read on the question, ask it only once.

     It is of great benefit to have a repetitive-command model session.  It
doesn't change a process on the PC all the time, so you clean up what you ask
for, not some variation.  And there is no variation in what you do.  You ask a
question, get an answer, check it on the meter, etc.  It is very easy to do,
once you find that it works.  It is so easy that people don't do it at first.
They do something else which is hard.  Everyone has, to some degree, the
desire to demonstrate that they are an expert because what they are doing is
difficult.  The real experts fool you; they make it look effortless and easy.

     When you start auditing on a simple coaudit, you may find that it is
perfectly easy.  Then you will go all the way around the dial to get back to
that ease.  One becames all thumbs over the horrible unknownness of it all,
once one has gotten into it.  So the simplicity of this model session is a
fooler.  You enter in with the idea that there must be something else to do
and with all the alter-ises wide open.  The expert has flattened the alter-is
impulse.  The amateur goes along fine, up to the moment where the PC says
something unclear.  There, he gets confused and doesn't know.  The next time
he comes to this point, he alters.  He is nervous about discussing someone's
problems anyway, so he alters and Q and A's.  If he gets into a habit of doing
this, he gets no results and thinks tech doesn't work.  But he has never tried
it.

     The first discussion of model session was in 1958, when Millie Galusha
and LRH took the things auditors tended to say and made a pattern, made the
session constant.  Then the reason for doing this was recognized: the
consistency of pattern ran out old sessions.  At Saint Hill, it became the
earmark of a professional-looking auditor.  The R-factor on auditing came up
enormously, using model session.  Now all the questions in model session can
be extended to become repetitive questions if necessary, to handle the
charge.  This use of repetitive processes to get ruds in makes model session
even more valuable.

     New PC's lack R. Model session, being consistent, puts in R.  This
increases the PC's trust: he is not being startled.  The auditor will thus be
more real and solid to the PC.  You have established expectancy in the PC.
You have also put in ARC.  Using model session without departure will get
interesting results all by itself.  If you put someone into session, ran only
model session, and took him nut, every day for three days running, the PC
would start talking about "my auditor".  All by itself model session also has
the power to smooth out the PC's needle.  This is even more true when it is
combined with prepchecking and havingness.  A new PC tends to look like
someone who is swimming two or three feet out of the water -- they slip in gradually.  They don't know what to expect or what will be demanded of them.  Once they find out, they will be relieved.  You could run any set of harmless questions three days running and the PC's reality on a session and ARC with the auditor would be much greater.

     Don't expect any one question in Model Session to straighten out the PC.
It is not a one-button proposition.  Don't expect to clean up a dirty needle
on a PC with missed withhold handling or with any one particular action.  It
is done with smooth auditing, not a part of auditing.  The needle cleans up
gradually as the PC goes through session after session.  Every now and then,
you will be thrown off because one PC in a hundred will react with a big
change.  You tend to get stuck in that win, and then you keep expecting to
find the magic button.  What really happened was that you had been gradually
improving the case before you hit that point.  Freud had luck and then got
hung up in the win.

     A clear is not made with 3GA alone.  It is good auditing plus 3GA that
produces a clear, neither part alone.  To that degree, model session is a part
of clearing, by keeping the session predictable and present time clean enough
to be audited in.  Thus you get an undistracted PC.

     Asking the PC, "Is it all right for me to audit you?" violates the rule
of not putting the PC's attention on the auditor, so it is not good to ask.
The "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" is OK because it
gets him to look at his case and talk to the auditor, so it gets him into
session.

     In middle ruds, you have a four-question package.  You look for an
instant read on each part.  If you get a read on one, the repeated question is
the single rud question.  For instance, if "invalidated" reads, you ask, "what
was it?", get the PC's response, ack, then recheck "invalidated".  When it is
clean, go on to check the rest of the four parts in singles, if you like to
keep him from getting confused.

     The body of the session is where middle ruds are used.  End rudiments
have had some additions.  The multiple "half-truth" question is handled the
same as mid-ruds.  On the "E-meter" question, one asks "How?", not "What was
it?" on "question or command", drop the one that didn't read.  On "critical",
You clear it with "done".  On "room", run havingness if it reads or if
havingness is down, as indicated by can squeeze.  Havingness began as a way to
bring Joe Winter back to PT from down the track, calling the PC's attention to
the environment.  It is always beneficial at end of session.

     The following are some flagrant errors that can be made:

          1. Not being expert with the meter.

          2. Not knowing model session script.

          3. Asking a question a second time when it was clean the first
          time.
             Don't alter-is the cleanness of the needle.  You can put an
             instant read on a meter by reading a clean question twice.  It is
             reading on protest.

          4. Not checking again after you have had the question read.

          5. Not saying that you couldn't tell what the read was.  when you
             couldn't.  Never pretend on a meter read.

          6. Failing to give the PC an R-factor on each new step.

     That is important, to wipe out his mystery about it all.

          7. Doing what the PC said.

          8. Making irrelevant statements or remarks.  This always upsets the
             PC and yanks him out of session.

