Dianetics 55! 1955 Chapter 10
Chapter 10: Communication Lag
Yesterday we used an instrument called an E-Meter to register whether or not the process was still getting results so that the auditor would know how long to continue it. While the E-Meter is an interesting investigation instrument and has played its part in research, it is not today used by the auditor except perhaps in testing the basal metabolism of the preclear. The E-Meter is no longer used to determine „what is wrong with the preclear.“ As we long ago suspected, the intervention of a mechanical gadget between the auditor and the preclear had a tendency to de-personalize the session and also gave the auditor a dependence upon the physical universe and its meters which did not have to be there. I knew when we first began to use E- Meters that sooner or later something would have to be evolved, or that something would turn up which would dispense with them. I worked along that line rather consistently and about half a year before this writing developed „communication lag“ as the only diagnostic instrument needed by the auditor.*
The exact definition of a communication lag is: „the length of time intervening between the posing of a question, or origination of a statement, and the exact moment that question or original statement is answered.“ *The Mark V E-Meter, though not a diagnostic instrument, was developed by L. Ron Hubbard since this writing for precision auditing. See book list in back of this book for titles on this subject.
If you will look very closely at this definition you will discover that nothing is said, whatever, about what goes on between the asking of the question or the origination of a communication and its being answered. What goes on in between is lag. It does not matter if the preclear stood on his head, went to the North Pole, gave a dissertation on Botany, stood silent, answered some other question, thought it over, attacked the auditor, or began to string beads. Any other action but answering, and the time taken up by that action, is communication lag. An auditor has to understand this very thoroughly. Usually he interprets a communication lag as the length of time it takes the preclear to answer the question and loosely applies this as the length of time between the asking of the question and the first moment the preclear starts to speak. This is not communication lag, for the preclear may start to speak on some other subject, may desire information, may almost answer the question, and still not actually answer the question.
If you will look around at people you will find them possessed of a great many communication lag mechanisms. In their effort not to be an effect, or in their effort not to be cause, in their aberrations about compulsive communication, and inhibitive communication, and in indulging in impulsive, compulsive and inhibitive communication. They manage to assemble quite a number of interesting mechanisms, but all these mechanisms are communication lag.
Here is an example of communication lag. Joe: „How are you, Bill?“ Bill: „You look fine, Joe.“ Here the question was never answered at all and would go on as a communication lag from there until the end of the universe.
Here is another example: Joe: „How are you, Bill?“ Bill (after twenty seconds of study): „Oh, I guess I’m all right today.“ As this is the commonest form of communication lag it is the most readily observed.
Less well known is the following communication lag. Joe: „How are you, Bill?“ Bill: „What do you want to know for?“ Again, this question goes on unanswered until the end of the universe.
The most maddening kind of communication lag is, Joe: „How are you Bill?“ Bill: _______ silence from there on out. This is dramatized when people anxiously inquire of an unconscious person how he is and they become entirely frantic. They are simply looking at a communication lag which they believe will become total, and their anxiety is simply their multiple suffering on the subject of communication lag.
Here is another type of communication lag. Joe: „How are you, Bill? I was saying to Ezra the other day that I have seen a lot of sick men in my time, but you certainly look pretty bad. Bill, now how are you? I’ve been down to see the doctor and he was telling me there’s a lot of these colds and things going around...“ In other words, Joe never gives Bill an opportunity to reply, and this is the other side of communication lag.
An auditor’s understanding of the subject of communication lag is brief if he believes it is the lag between the originator of the communication and the person to whom it is addressed. On our Graph „A“ on an earlier page this would be from Joe to Bill’. There is a return lag, and that is from Bill’ to Joe’, and, as above, there is a lag between Joe and Joe’ where Joe simply keeps on talking without ascertaining if there is any Bill’ there. You could also call this return lag an „acknowledgement lag.“ Joe to Joe is not a communication at all. Actually, Joe to Bill’ without the completion of the cycle is the same thing. Joe never acknowledges a communication and so the return lag is actually Joe to Joe. The proper sequence of such a communication is Bill’ to Joe’. In other words Joe, to make a complete cycle of communication, must acknowledge in some manner, verbal or gesture, that Bill’ has said something.
Joe to Joe, as a communication lag (which is to say, no acknowledgement) has as its initial root an absence, for Joe, of Bill to Bill’ in Graph „B.“ In other words, Joe has been called upon to originate communication so consistently that he now does so compulsively and obsessively since there has been an entire scarcity of other people originating communication.
Now let us look at a highly specialized type of communication lag. Here we have Joe to Bill to Bill’ to Joe’, as in Graph „A.“ Then we have Joe waiting for Bill, in Graph „B,“ to originate a communication. If Bill does not, and only silence ensues, Joe then originates another communication. In other words, we have no two-way communication.
The two-way cycle of communication is not quite as important in auditing as it would be in Life, for in auditing the auditor perforce is originating communication in order to get the preclear up to the point where he can originate communication. One does nod remedy Life by approximating it exactly in the auditing room. The process is so designed that it will accomplish a rehabilitation in Life without, to a marked degree, having to live it. As an example of this, the auditor does not expect the preclear to turn around and originate some process to make the auditor well. But the auditor does expect to get audited by somebody sooner or later, or expects to be at a level where he can rise above this need of a communication interchange in order to live.
The place auditors have the most trouble with the communication lag is the retum lag. Auditors seldom acknowledge the execution of commands on the part of the preclear. As in Opening Procedure of 8-C, a process which is one of the six basic processes, the auditor sends the preclear over to touch the wall. When the preclear has touched the wall, the auditor is quite prone to give another command without acknowledging the fact that the preclear has touched the wall. It is an amazing thing what the lack of acknowledgement will do to slow down a case recovery. Many times when an auditor is doing this acknowledging, he is doing it in such a perfunctory fashion that the preclear does not recognize it as an acknowledgement, but as a prelude to a new command. A good auditor makes very, very sure that the preclear knows the acknowledgement has occurred, As an example, the auditor says: „Go over to the wall and touch it.“ The preclear does so. The auditor says: „Very good,“ and with a definite pause after this acknowledgement says: „Now go over to that wall and touch it.“ In other words, the auditor who is a good auditor makes sure that the preclear knows that a complete cycle of communication has occurred on this particular auditing command.
Another failure on the part of auditors is to fail to let the preclear originate a communication. The auditor tells the preclear: „Go over to that wall and touch it.“ The preclear does so but stops midway in the gesture and gasps, then completes the gesture. The bad auditor will fail to note and inquire after this gasp. This is actually the origin of a communication on the part of the preclear. He does not verbalize it. He does not express it any further than some physical gesture or a look of dismay, and even these might be slight, but this is usually as far as he can go in originating a communication. The auditor who fails to pick this up fails to inform the preclear thus that the preclear is permitted to originate a communication. This gasp, this gesture, should at once be noted by the auditor with a „What’s happening?“ or, „What’s the matter?“ or, „Something happen?“ This gives the preclear the opportunity to originate a second cycle of communication. Remember that the gesture or the gasp was actually a communication. The preclear probably will not acknowledge the auditors statement beyond starting out on the origin of a new communication, but the fact that he does originate a statement on the subject of what is the matter is, in itself, an acknowledgement of the fact that he has heard the auditor. This is so vital that many cases have stumbled, tripped, and bogged, simply because the auditor did not encourage the preclear to make a statement as to something which had occurred. Actually, the more often an auditor can do this the better auditor he is, and the more good will be done by auditing.
Now, of course, there is an opposite side of this where the auditor can give credence to an obsessive or compulsive outflow on the part of the preclear to such an extent that the auditing is entirely interrupted. An example of this occurred recently where a preclear outflowed at an auditor three days and three nights without the auditor recognizing entirely that this, was simply obsessive communication in action. But this is not communication. This is not pertinent to the situation, and the definition of compulsive or obsessive communication is „an outflow which is not pertinent to the surrounding terminals and situation.“ In other words, compulsive or obsessive communication is an outflow which is not in reality with the existing reality.
We see, then, that an auditing session really does include two- way cycle of communication, but it does not include it, ever, unless the auditor invites the preclear to comment upon what is going on as he does processing.
Just as a side comment here, the way to handle an obsessive or a compulsive communication is to wait for a slight break in the flow and interject an auditing command. Remember that an obsessive outflow is actually not a communication. A communication is on the subject and is in agreement with the environment. It is also in agreement with what is occurring.
Now it doesn’t happen to matter what process is being done, the basic of that process is two-way communication. In auditing, as in living, communication is existence. In the absence of communication we have silence, and where we have silence we have no time. Time is manifested in communication lag to the extent that the preclear has been subjected to silences, or such a thing as an obsessive or compulsive outflow which had nothing to do with communicating on the subject at hand. This is again a sort of silence. Somebody talking obsessively and continually about things which might or might not exist, and to no one in particular without expecting any cycle of communication to take place.
A communication lag is handled by an auditor by repetition of a question or command which elicited a communication lag. Here is an example. Bill: „How are you, Joe?“ Joe: silence; silence; silence – finally a grunt. Bill: „How are you, Joe?“ Silence, silence – “O.K., I guess.“ Bill: „How are you, Joe?“ „I’m all right, I tell you!“ Bill: „How are you, Joe?“ Joe: silence _______ „I’m O.K.“ Bill: „How are you Joe?“ Joe: „All right, I guess.“ Bill; „How are you, Joe?“ Joe: „All right.“ Bill: „How are you Joe?“ Joe: „Oh, I’m all right.“
This is an example of flattering a communication lag.* At first we have silence and no very intelligible reply, then we have silence and a reply, and then other manifestations, each one of which demonstrates a changing interval of time until the last couple of commands – three, in actual auditing practice – where the same interval of time was present.
Flattening a communication lag requires only that the preclear answer after a uniform interval of time at least three times. This uniform interval of time could, for practical purposes, be as long as 10 seconds. Thus we get lengths of time required to answer an auditing question as follows: answer requires 35 seconds; answer requires 20 seconds; answer requires 10 seconds; answer requires 10 seconds; answer requires 10 seconds. To all intents and purposes, with these three last 10 second intervals the auditor could consider that he has to some degree flattened this particular auditing command because he is getting a consistent response. However, with such a long lag as 10 seconds, the auditor will discover that if he asked the question two or three more times he would recover a changing interval once more.
This is the mechanical formula of flattening communication lag. Give the order, as in Opening Procedure of 8-C, or ask the question, as in Straightwire, and then continue to give that same order or ask that same question until the preclear executes it after a short interval three times the same.
There is an entirely different manifestation for a completely flattened communication lag. We get extroversion. The preclear ceases to put his attention on his mind, but puts his attention on the environment. We see this happen often in the Opening Procedure of 8-C where the preclear has the room suddenly become bright to him. He has extroverted his attention. He has come free from one of these communication tangles out of the past and has suddenly looked at the environment. This is all that has happened. On a thinkingness level this happens quite often. The preclear is doing the process very well, and then begins to remember odds and ends of appointments he has, or some such thing. Just because he does this is no reason the auditing session should be ended. It simply demonstrates an extroversion. You have, in one way or another, pulled the preclear out of a communication tangle and put him into present time, when he extroverts
Communication lag as a subject could be a very large one. We have all manner of communication lags in evidence around us. Probably the most interesting one is the shock reaction after an accident, which one occasionally sees. At times it takes the body 36 hours to find out and reply to the fact that it has received an impact. It is quite common for a body to suddenly manifest the impact half an hour after it. This is communication lag. There are many humorous angles to communication lag. Sometimes you ask somebody „How are you?“ and you get a reply from his social machinery. He says, „I’m fine.“ Then, two or three hours later, he is liable to say to you, „I feel terrible.“ This was the preclear, himself, answering. This was the awareness of awareness unit awakening to this communication lag.
This universe could be called a consistent and continuous communication lag. One is trapped in it to the degree that he is lagging. If there were no remedy for communication lag I would never bring up the subject. However, there is, and it is a remedy which is easily undertaken in auditing today.
Entrapment is actually communication lag. One has waited for communication which never arrived, expected something to answer so long and so often that he becomes fixated upon something, or in somethings, and so does not believe he can escape from it. The first and foremost factor in communication lag, of course, is time, and the next factor is waiting. This is also dependent upon time.
As has been commented earlier, the only things which float on the time track are the moments of silence when no communication occurred. These are „no time“ moments, and so have no time in which they can live, and so they float forward on the time-track. It is an oddity that an engram behaves in such a way as to put all its silent moments in present time with the preclear and leave its talking or action moments back on the track. When we took a person back to birth and ran out birth, we took out the action moments. If we did not take out, as well, the silent moments in birth, we did not take out the very things which pin themselves to the preclear in present time. In other words, the birth engram did not move at all, but the silent moments in birth might have a tendency to come up into present time. These silent moments in engrams and facsimiles do, themselves, compose the matter extant in the preclear. This matter is not so much composed of action moments as silent moments. Thus we see that an individual, the longer he lives in this universe, the more communication lag he runs into, the more upset he is about existence, the greater his communication lag, the more he is silent. Of course, obsessive or compulsive communication is just one grade above silence. It is the last frantic effort to keep things from going entirely quiet. It is not communication and is actually silence of a sort, particularly since very few people listen to it.
Now we are studying about communication, and we are communicating about communication, and you have every opportunity here to get yourself beautifully snarled, so I would ask you to look around your environment and check a number of manifestations of communication lag. You are not controlled by the subject. You can easily control it. The dangerous thing is not to know the answers and simply go on in these consistent and continual communication lags imposed upon us by the lack of communication in this universe.
It is of great interest to note that imagination as a function of existence becomes drowned in an absence of communication origin. An individual can become so dependent upon others for entertainment and originating communications that he himself does not. Indeed, it is very unpopular in this society at this time to originate communications. One should always say that somebody else thought of it first, or that it goes back to the ancient Ugluks, or that it’s happened many times before, or that one has just dug up the information after it has been buried, or one is really taking directions from the Archangel Smearel, rather than stand up and plead guilty to originating a communication. Unless one can originate communications one’s imagination is in bad shape. The reverse does not happen to be true. The imagination is not that thing which is first imperiled and then results in failure to originate communication. Failure of communication origin then results in failure of imagination, so the rehabilitation of communication origin rehabilitates as well the imagination. This is very good news, indeed, for anyone in the creative arts, particularly, but who is not in the creative arts?
Examining the whole subject of communication one discovers that there are very few people around him in this day and age who are actively communicating, and there are a lot of people who think they are communicating who are not.
* Note that this is an example only, not an actual process or question an auditor would use respetitively.—Ed.