View source for Demo Case Assessment, Part 2 (1MACC 591117)

'''Series:''' 1st Middle-American ACC (1MACC)

'''Date:''' 17 November 1959

'''Speaker:''' L. Ron Hubbard

----

← [[Lecture_Index_1MACC|Back to Series]]

Thank you.

Now, today we have a very important thing to do.

This is lecture number fourteen or demonstration number fourteen, and you know what? I don't think you can assess people yet. I don't. I don't.

I see some of you, I see Dick and Jan sitting in there, working at it and so forth and other people standing there very interested, looking very interestedly.

And boy, until you can read a pc like you can read the headlines of a newspaper, I'm not going to feel comfortable about you.

I want you to take one look at somebody a hundred and ninety yards away and say, "Aha! ARC break. Bang! What do you know!"

Take a look at somebody else down at the end of the block, and say, "Well, well, automobile accident, 1955, August the 1st, two people in the car, nobody hurt."

I'm exaggerating.

I can't do that myself unless I look.

Let's look this over though. How many of you know that an E-Meter reads a pc? Let's see your hands. Know that an E-Meter reads a pc?

Sneaky, huh?

All right, how many of you know that an E-Meter reads a bank? Okay.

How many of you know that there is some connection between the pc, bank and body? Do you know there's a connection?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Now, how many of you know you can shift that relationship? You, just you, with the meter, can shift the relationship?

Audience: Yeah.

Okay, all right. You know that?

Audience: Mm-hm.

All right, that's pretty good. That's pretty good.

If it reads at 2.5, what is it?

Audience: (various responses)

Yeah, that's right, you're answering variously. It's two things, two things.

What if it's reading 2.25? What is it?

Audience: (various responses)

2.25? No, a man and a woman reads at 2.0 and 3.0 – a woman and a man read at 2.0 and 3.0. And anything between is reading something else. Got it?

And what reads below 2.0?

Audience: A mindless object.

A mindless objects All right.

Now, how would you keep anybody else from knowing anything?

Come on, how would you keep anybody else from knowing anything at all?

Audience: (various responses)

Hm?

Audience: (various responses)

That's my boy. Mark him up. Mark him up. That's pretty good. A mindless object would keep anybody from knowing anything.

So, when it really falls down the tone arm, down in below 2.0, you're looking at what? Continuous and obsessive repression of knowingness, aren't we?

Audience: Yes.

Is that right?

Audience: Yes.

All right, those of you that are still reading below 2.0, or read down there occasionally and so forth, now, how do you get a needle down from 4.0?

Audience: Two-way comm.

Mm-hm. You get the pc to disclose his withholdingnesses.

And what happens when it falls all the way down to 1.2 or something?

Audience: (various responses)

Yeah, it's a weak valence. Now, what's a weak valence?

Audience: (various responses)

Hm?

It's an inflow valence, isn't it?

Audience: Yes.

Not an outflow valence.

And being an inflow valence then, it just prevents everybody from knowing anything, doesn't it?

Audience: Yes.

So it has its uses, doesn't it?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Now, do you understand why a needle falls down from a high tone arm to a very low tone arm?

Audience: Yes.

It's the same breed of cat.

And the reason I didn't have any trouble, I had to learn some things about this, is because students on ACCs always have more trouble than I had. That's a fact! That's a horrible fact. They always had more trouble than I had doing the same thing.

And I very often have to zig and zag back and forth in an ACC until I comprehend what's going on, because every now and then, I'll level with you, I haven't had time to work something out 100 percent of the time by the time it's presented to an ACC. Don't you see? The public doesn't get ahold of it actually until long after it's presented to an ACC. Got that?

Audience: Yes.

So, an ACC, completely aside from making better auditors and cleaning up cases, and doing a lot of other things, provides a very interesting test ground. Hm?

Audience: Yes.

And I don't know all there is to know when I start in an ACC, because I know by experience, he said snidely and sarcastically, and so forth, that you're going to find some things out about it that I didn't have any trouble with. That's inevitable!

So, I've had to look over your low valence thing again and I've got news for you. The guy puts something there to withhold for him. You've driven him down to a point of where he withholds on automatic! He doesn't even have to withhold anymore! Hm?

Audience: Yeah.

All right, along with that I've just dreamed up another process which I knew something about but didn't know its shape or form of until I started looking at this phenomenon, and talking to you and so on.

And I'm pretty sure you could knock that needle – tone arm back up again with the process I just gave you at the end of the last lecture: "What would you be willing for me to know?"

And you could probably run a dichotomy on it "What would you be willing for me to know? What would you not be willing for me to know?"

Which, of course, because it's being run in total mystery would be "Think of something you would be willing to let me know. Think of something you would be unwilling to let me know." Got it?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Now, you could run the dynamics one way or the other and you could put it up into pluralities and so forth and you'd get such silly questions, obvious question as "Think of something you would let others know. Think of something you wouldn't let others know."

Got the idea?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Of course, it should go up on just "Think of something you would let others know," without its reverse side kicking it along.

You can put that reverse side on the thing and it doesn't make the pc run through a confusion. It's a confusion preventer. And if you think your pc's going to go through bad confusions, then you play the positive, see, the "know and not-know" you know, and the middle ground runs out.

You can usually get away with just running the positive, "know" or the positive "reach."

Overt-Withhold Straightwire is designed for a case to keep the case from going into a confusion. "What have you done? What have you withheld from?" See. Bing, bing, bing, bing, bing. Between the two, all the mystery goes out and the confusion goes out rather easily. But the same confusion would go out with "What have you done? What have you done? What have you done? What have you done?"

But the pc would be confused a bit in the process of doing it. Got the idea? That's by theory, also by some observation.

Now, "What would you be willing to let others know?" would be an obvious thing. But it becomes less obvious when you say, "What would you be willing to let animals know?"

And you'll find at once your cycle of action is coincidental because eating animals is one of man's penchants. He is destroying animals, he is destroying vegetable matter, and so forth rather uniformly, isn't he?

So I'd take something that he just does all the time and just ask a question about it and just answer the question for yourself and you'll get a very good object lesson: "What would you be willing for a pig to know?" Isn't that a fascinating question? Hm?

"What would you be willing for a head of cabbage to know?"

"What would you be willing for a salad to know?"

I've had a reporter almost turn gray-headed over the thought of tomatoes feeling pain. A terrible shock to this boy!

I showed him that the tomato plant would react to an E-Meter. And this tomato plant reacts like mad, any tomato plant does. And also you can tell what its survival is, how close it is over on its idea of the cycle of action. See, and its ideas are way over, up high, you know, on the tone arm. It thinks it's pretty dead anyhow most of the time.

As soon as this reporter found out that all you had to do was bite a tomato on the vine and you got a registry on the needle right after he had been holding the cans and gotten pinched, and gotten the same reaction on the needle, he started saying, "This is terrible! This is terrible! This is terrible! Why, people would go into a terrible panic if they knew about this. This could cause an awful mess! Every time you eat a tomato, why obviously, you would think of this" and that sort of thing.

Why, I imagine he went home that night and ate tomatoes! How do you think he managed it? He just turned on another not-know for the tomato, didn't he?

No, people are going down tone arm very rapidly. They're just being beaten down tone arm and they finally shift into a mindless object so they can be totally defensible, evidently.

And you can't pay attention to a tone arm on the basis of "It is high, therefore he is withholding something."

Well, it's too high for you to audit the person because he's withholding something so hard that it would really interfere with it. But you'd start knocking that down anywhere along the line, he could probably be audited.

The truth of the matter is, he shifts off to a weak valence that you wouldn't let anything know, and it wouldn't let anything know, because it doesn't have any mind and so forth.

Now, look, I'm not saying that women read below men because they have less mind than men. I'm not saying that at all, it's a totally physiological reaction.

I don't know why they read down lower. But you go much lower than a female valence and what are you going to run into?

Audience: A mindless object.

Go on, growl! Growl! All right.

You're going to run into an inverted male valence, of course.

Now, a person simply shifts off, evidently, into a mindless thing, and his best method of keeping knowingness from spreading all over the place, was of course to pick up an object that didn't, and be it.

Now, you question that object and of course you're not going to get any response at all. Now, you could outguess him and find out what the object is and then find out what that object would be willing to let anything know. And he'll do some kind of a flip up scale again. Why? Because you whipped the mechanism.

But actually you're forcing a person downstairs. So, I've come to the conclusion, or am coming to the conclusion, that you must be ARC breaking these people down, rather than pulling the tone arm down.

Now, that's an awful accusation. You must be getting the tone arm down in such a way they don't feel comfortable about it. You must be dragging it out of them against their will to get low tone arms – not putting them into a frame of mind where they'll give. And I think that's what I do that you don't do. Because I will sales talk a pc into telling me but never force the pc into telling me. You got the idea?

Audience: Yes.

And I think when you force the pc into telling you with some method of duress whereby your – your ARC and so forth – he's queasy about this ARC and so on – I believe there's some kind of a mechanism, and I'm just thinking out loud here, takes place where he feels like he's been degraded somehow, if he then picks up an object that won't think in order to substitute it for him. Right?

Audience: Right.

So, I think the smoothness with which you take one down is a lot to do with it. You understand?

Audience: Yes.

Now, there's a reverse side to this which is quite interesting and that's one of the finest IQ processes known. That process which increases IQ fastest is "What could you withhold from _____?" That's a swifty. I have run a series of I think seven or eight pcs, all run by other auditors, all running crudely and newly – these were just random cases, run crudely, newly – this process, "Think of something you could withhold from (some valence)."

See, they did a little assessment and found out some kind of a valence and then they thought of something they could withhold from.

Actually, I was trying to get something that would break down – the original process – I was trying to get something that would break down a preacher's congregational members so that a preacher would start using Scientology and get pulled right on in, heels, hymnbook and all. It was an overt act against the ministry. They could use a few of those overt acts. They could.

Well, I wanted ministers to start using this in counseling, so I was going to get out a little pamphlet about how you counsel a person in your congregation and you're going to ask him questions and I was trying to find the right question to ask them so that they would get the person to feel saintly about it all, and give, and so forth.

And I was trying to figure out some way, by which a preacher, priest, or something, you see – because they have an awful lot of time getting people to confess actually in the confessional in the Catholic church. You'd be surprised.

Well, look at it yourself. This guy is sitting in a little box, and he doesn't have any TRs, and he's got no E-Meter and… I mean, he thinks everybody in the – everybody in the place is going to come up and whisper sweet secrets through the box? Yeah, I bet they do!

Now, how do you suppose he makes the grade? Well, he doesn't make the grade at all unless somebody is terrified of the person he's talking about. Right?

Audience: Mm-hm.

No, it doesn't do those people very much good. It just scares them to death, scares them into talking, tells them the horrible consequences of hell-fire and damnation.

Well, if you go around and tell somebody, well, or you infer, "Well, you're not going to get Clear unless you start talking, son." That's the same thing, pretty much the same thing, isn't it? You're condemning somebody to hellfire and damnation of his own skull if he doesn't open up and yeep.

Well, there'd be another way to go about it and that would be to increase a fellow's willingness.

Well, you have two processes by which this could be done, as a process, and I actually think – watching you strangle the E-Meter and wrestle around with a pc and beat your brains out and figure this thing out, I think you could actually stand some process or technique assistance.

And the best one, I've already given you, see: "What would you be willing to have somebody know?" See?

And that would work best as far as the pc is concerned, probably if you, ran it as a dichotomy: "something to know," versus "not-know." And you'd be running the reach-withhold mechanism.

Because if you run withhold consistently and continue it, you can get away with it. That's the weirdest thing, "What could you withhold from Mother? Good." "What could you withhold from Mother? Good." "What could you withhold from Mother? Good."

Now, if you sorted somebody out into valences and found him in a mindless valence, he'd have an awful time trying to figure out something he could withhold from a bean pot. Get the idea? "What would you withhold from a bean pot?"

"Well, how would it know I had anything to withhold from it?" You know?

Well, it's very easy. I can withhold a stove from a bean pot with the greatest of ease. I just don't put it on the stove. But people don't look at things quite that simply when they're agonizing around down in the lower part of the tone arm reading.

And you found out what he could withhold from this, or withhold from that.

He actually has adopted the mindless mechanism and you'll find basically someplace back on the track that he was entrusted with some enormous secret that he mustn't tell anybody. And somebody convinced him it was an enormous secret that nobody must find out. Because the civilization would be doomed and all that sort of thing if anybody found this thing out.

In other words, he joined the army or the navy or any other military organization and got himself brainwashed. See, that's a good brainwash, just not to let anybody know.

See, I could probably drive army officers in Washington around the Pentagon down far enough to always pay the dinner check, simply by sitting at the table with them, you know, and convincing them utterly, completely, boundlessly and endlessly that there were just spies all around in the room and they had to keep their voices down, no matter what they were talking about, see.

Talking about this golf game and so forth, you say, "Dum-dum-dum-dum. Hm-hm-hm-hm."

The guy says, "Well, yes." "Well, I took the putter. I took the putter and I went out on the…"

And you say, "Ah, so. Hm-hm."

But he gets it day and night, gets it day and night, mustn't tell his wife, mustn't tell anybody anything. If he just happens to have any security rating at all and something comes through on the manufacture of bows and new arrows, "Top Secret!"

Well, there was a top secret project in the US, you know; manufacture of bows and arrows, World War II. When they finally unburied all the archives and so forth, that was one they found in it: "Bows and Arrows, Top Secret."

And they had hired somebody to experiment with bows and arrows for commandos, see. And he'd just taken Indian bows and Indian arrows and he'd gone out and shot at a few targets, wrote up the data, they put "Top Secret" on it and it had been there ever since the war.

Well, they finally get "mustn't know, mustn't know, mustn't know" and along with this comes enemy, enemy, enemy!

So, it is very natural for a military to run into withheld information because they are always faced by an enemy. Do you understand?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Now, the pc who is facing you, if he successfully continuously withholds information from you, realizes then that he is facing an enemy. That's right, he's facing a separate thing in an enemy and he gets ARC broke with you and so forth because he knows that you'll fight him. Now, you haven't promoted any ARC at all.

Now, if you're being – very maladroitly trying to drag information out of him by his heels, and if you're shoving him down Tone Scale, and you're ARC breaking him around about the place trying to get dope and data out of him, he has two answers to this. You're getting it roughly, see, he's got two answers. One is to clam up knowingly, or to go into a mindless valence which wouldn't know. And there he is, nice and stupid, so how can you get anything out of him he doesn't know himself. You got the idea? He slips into this valence.

All right, now if this was – were gotten out of him smoothly or if he were bucked up the line a bit to a point of where he'd take a wider responsibility for himself and the various dynamics – when he told you, it would be because he was willing to tell you.

Now, this is one of the oldest mechanisms we have, is that a pc who comes into an HGC with a tremendous number of secrets that nobody must learn about, he's usually coming in with some little old two-bit secret that hasn't anything to do with the price of fish. They just seem to think this is an "enormous secret" and nobody must know about it.

We've had such a pc stand around and talk to the Director of Processing for literally an hour or so, just making sure that nobody is going to find out anything, you know.

If we've done anything for this pc at all and brought this pc up tone, why, the pc at the end of a long period of processing, one or two, three intensives, something like this, will be sailing in to the D of P's office saying so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so, and talking like this – never mentions these secrets. See? The person's social status hasn't altered, nothing has altered, but "willingness for others to know" has increased.

And that's one of the instinctive methods of evaluation of states of case which is used in HGC. That is so well-known amongst auditors you've never talked about it. Isn't that right?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Well, it's these little facts that come to view that take on a great deal of importance because they're terribly fundamental.

Now, if you drag these secrets out of the person, mostly without the person's consent, under duress, talking about hellfire and damnation, that person is liable to go down tone. Right?

Audience: Mm-hm.

To withhold more! And abandons his or her integrity! And says, "Well, I give up."

They get as well as they would ever get in psychiatry, see, which is to go totally out of the bottom. They go into apathy.

Now, the odd part of it is, you could always cure arthritis, always cure arthritis, by taking a person from 1.5 or .5 and knocking him down to .1. It's the funniest thing.

I don't know why anybody has any difficulty curing arthritis. All you'd have to do is kick the guy in the door and kick him out the door and give him horrible looking nurses and – and charge him enormous bills and then before he had a chance to pay them, why, sue him. See, he'd just gotten the bill that morning, he'd say, "Well, I'll write out a check for it" and so forth, and the solicitor comes in with a writ. Do you get the idea?

And then without waiting for the writ to be served, you falsify it in some way so the bailiffs have all the furniture out on the sidewalk before he can even put the checkbook away to find out what the commotion is. He wouldn't have arthritis anymore.

Because with this much action, activity and so forth he simply would have sunk into apathy.

Now, arthritis is a ridge illness which hangs at the solid parts of the Tone Scale; grief, anger, so forth. Got the idea? That's a ridge disease.

All a person has to do is slide into the run between the ridges, and there goes the arthritis. It wouldn't matter whether you drove them down scale or up, they would be rid of the arthritis.

But the funny part of it is, if you had to drive them down scale to get rid of it, they would actually have been better off with it. Do you see that? Audience: Yes.

So, if you have to drive somebody down scale to get his tone arm down, he's better off with it up.

The bulls, as the police are familiarly referred to, know this very well. They know how to get information and get things disclosed. They know very well how to get things disclosed.

Turn a light in a fellow's face, and you get a chair, you see, that rocks sideways, and you hold it – some water over here, and you put it in plain view but don't let him have any. Got the idea?

And then you keep rocking him sideways and you keep shining more light in his face, and keep telling him he did it. And after a while he confesses! Isn't that remarkable? It would never have occurred to him probably.

You get more false confessions that way. See? You keep rocking him sideways, and upsetting his equilibrium, and then a whole bunch of faces in the darkness back of the light keep telling him that he did it. "You know you did it. You know you robbed the bank. You know you did it. You know you did it."

And so the fellow says, "I'd like a glass of water."

So, a cop takes a glass of water and drinks it himself and puts it back down on the table, "You know you did it! You know you did it."

They exteriorize him kind of into the room. They splatter him all over the place. They're driving him down, down, down, down, down scale. Pretty soon he will confess to anything. He will confess to anything.

And I think basically the difference of address here between the experimental run, and the actual practice is – is probably basically preclear trust. Preclears trust me pretty well. They always have. It just occurs to them they better tell me.

The funny part of it is most of the time they don't even have to give me the information.

Dick ran into this the other day. It happened over there in the corner this morning. The person said something or other. He was riding high, and I went by and he went down! He went down to the Clear reading. Why did he go down to the Clear reading? Well, he decided he could tell me. And the needle fell.

So, I guess you'd better work to inspire confidence in your pc. And I think that's your missing slink. Got it?

Audience: Yep.

I think that's the answer to it.

Now, you're all students here together, and you all know that you're knowing, and you all know that you're learning, you all know that you're being taught, and most of you, good auditors enough outside of this class, are known to be students in this class. And there's no question of altitude here. It's mostly, "He is just another student." You got the idea?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Well, your Instructors can come along and knock the tone arms down and get the gen with some altitude and perhaps some confidence. You got it?

Audience: Mm-hm.

What are you making them sit in there for, huh?

I'm not going to let them sit in tomorrow. You going to have to get busy. You inspire the confidence. How are you going to do that? Well, that's one technique you're going to dream up. How are you going to do it? Now, if you inspire enough confidence you won't have to take it apart in any other way. But if you have to use a technique and so forth to get the pc into two-way comm with you, I would say offhand that you would get the pc into two-way comm with you by making the pc more tolerant. And this is perfectly all right. A pc shouldn't feel bad about it. But I'll just tell you privately between thee and me, is the reason you had to do it is because you didn't inspire a necessary level of confidence. That's all.

Now, what was missing? It isn't a matter of how you hold the pinkie or how… You know? It isn't a matter of how rigidly you brace your jaw when you ask the question.

It's the matter of how confident you appear to be. How confident do you feel when you sit in that auditing chair, huh? Are you confident? Or do you feel sort of n-a-a-a-h-h-h-h. Hm? Do you feel like you know what you're doing? Or do you feel oo-o-o-o-o? Or do you feel maybe that I know what you're doing? And that's good enough. Hm? Or do you feel your Instructors know what you're doing, so that's all right? Got the idea?

Audience: Mm-hm.

The very fact that you would have to be instructed by your Instructors is an invalidation because they normally stop by when things are going wrong. But I'm not going to let them sit down in the chair tomorrow. You're going to inspire confidence in your pc. You hear me?

Audience: Yes. Mm-hm.

Your pc will suddenly say, "Ahhhh." You know? "What's come over this guy?" You know." What's come over this guy? Must be something come over this guy. I feel like confiding something in him," you know. Savvy?

Audience: Yes.

Oh, the first thing you've got to whip is not a technique. The thing you've got to whip is inspiring confidence in your pc.

I've had people put me on a meter. They always tell me it's because I'm me. That's their usual alibi. That's an alibi. Because I'm me, they can't audit me. That's the wildest thing I ever heard of.

They go flipping around into some weak valence of some kind or another, and sit there and get all thumbs and ten tongues. Very often. Why? Because I'm the source of all of this information, I'm the source of all of this material. Well, I'll admit, I did a pretty good job of putting it together, but you're the source of it. If you hadn't made these postulates, you wouldn't have them. If you hadn't mishmashed this stuff up and assigned the evaluation of importance that you have assigned to the various postulates that you assigned them to, and the considerations which you have, nothing would work on you!, You wouldn't be in this universe!

What do you mean, I'm the source of all this?

The only thing I'm better at than you are is I can see more, see it better, see it harder, and with a better heart, and that's all I got. Do you understand?

Audience: Yes.

You're the source of this stuff or you wouldn't be here.

Scientology is life.

Well, that's just then an alibi, isn't it, that somebody uses, saying, "You're you, and therefore I can't audit you." That's just a nice alibi because the truth of the matter is I audit like a baby carriage. You know? It upsets the living daylights out of some auditors because my case changes. It goes, flick-flick-flick-flick-flick-flick-flick. "Thank you," I say, "There's a cognition."

"Good. Thank you." And they go on running the same process and because I'm a good pc, I go on and run the process for a while. Finally, he'll say, "How are you now?"

And I say, "Well, I'm all right."

They very rarely ask me, "Well, how were you ten minutes ago?" I would have told them I was all right ten minutes ago. They've been running the process for a half an hour, and the somatic went away, and the broken leg got all cured up there in the first five minutes. You get the idea?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Well that has nothing to do with the fact that I can just look at a broken leg if my attention is called to it, and I'm given enough assistance in glancing in that direction, just as you would be able to do. Do you understand?

Audience: Mm-hm.

A better perception.

Then basically, I'm not unwilling for you to know. I never have been. The worse sins that I have ever committed were unfortunately based on the fact that – all on a knowingness line. I've been a provost marshal, and that sort of thing. And when they were hanged I wanted them to know about it. Get the idea?

Now, I didn't mean to talk about me particularly. Well, who are you to get so overwhumped by me, huh? Get the idea?

Audience: Mm-hm.

I'm just pointing out to you that there's something to look at. And I'm showing you that it's there to look at. And this box assists you in looking, know-how, experience, familiarity; these things all assist you in looking. Confidence comes with vast experience and I've had lots of that. But so have you. We've been in the universe the same length of time.

As far as confidence is concerned, it's the amount of confidence that you're willing somebody else to have – the amount of confidence that you inspire. You got it?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Very simple, basically. Not doing anything very fantastic. But you'll get as far, and get this tone arm down just as far as you inspire confidence! And you will beat it down as far as a mindless valence every time you don't inspire confidence. Because this mindless valence you're running into is a defense, and I have to recognize it as such. And I think some of you that are riding below 2.0 right now, I think would probably confirm this to some degree. That is a kind of lack of confidence. See? You're not quite sure whether or not this – all the things should exist. You got the idea?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Now, if you can inspire confidence in somebody else, it's because your own presence is fairly relaxed, and because you are perfectly willing to sit there and listen and hear what they're saying, and run the pc, as they used to say – not run the process. Big difference, you know – running a pc and running a process. Processes are pretty valuable. The only reason they exist is the pc!

So as you pull it down, so will you succeed.

Now, you won't quite know whether or not you have hammered it down, or inspired it down, unless you turn around and start asking the fellow for your own ARC breaks or if there's anything wrong in doing this or you've done something that he's very unwilling to have done, and all that sort of thing. Do you understand?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Well, if he is, you've got a technique to put it up. Show him conclusively that he does have the ability to withhold something from you. Got that? And just rehabilitate that as an ability. Rehabilitate it as an ability to withhold things from the various dynamics.

Now, if you want to know what an automaticity is, you just ask somebody someday to "Get the idea of withholding something from a jail." And you've got enough whole track on that, that it's one of the rougher questions.

It's rather an amusing question.

There's another amusing question, "Get the idea of withholding something from a stomach." You get all sorts of punches in the stomach but at the same time there seems to be a – an automaticity is very easily set in action whereby a river of food goes right on down the gullet, the second you think of "withholding something from a stomach."

So, there is an ability to withhold.

Now, you'd think, offhand, that this wouldn't run because it's a cut communication process but we've already sorted it out and demonstrated that it isn't.

But if you ran "withhold" and "know" as two points you could certainly get away with it and you've got a killer of a process, "What are you willing to have others know? What are you willing to withhold from others?"

Got the idea? Not, not-know-know, see, but know and withhold. And that would rehabilitate a pc who had been beaten down.

And I'd say you'd have an awful time auditing somebody who had just been put through the third degree. He'd really been made to confess.

People have been made to confess to such a degree that every time there's a murder in town there are certain people who walk down to the police station at once and confess to having done it. And the cops know all about this, and there'll be eight, ten, twelve of them. They'll actually stand around – the cops will, waiting for these people to show up and confess, on a totally – automaticity of confess. They're simply dramatizing a confession. Pathetic thing, isn't it?

Audience: Yes.

Well, you can rehabilitate a pc up this line, and just for this unit, looking it over, that's a killer of a process of rehabilitation along this line.

Some such phraseology is, "Think of something you would be willing for a (or yourself or something or others or any dynamic) – a (any dynamic, any terminal) to know." "Think of something you could withhold from ______."

That's a very positive command, you see. One is willing and the other is could withhold from (dynamic).

You've got a valence splitter there, I know by experience, that is an – a rupturous smasher. That's really quite a valence splitter.

You've also got something that will rehabilitate these broken-down, got-to-confess symptoms that are put in along the line.

Until you inspire confidence, tremendous confidence in your pc, until your pc is actually able and willing to be audited by you not by Jan on a via or Dick on a via or somebody else on a via or by me on a big via, but audited by you, you'll continue to have trouble.

There are mechanical ways of inspiring no confidence.

Turning on an E-Meter, "Let's see, let's see, where's the switch. Sens – oh, there's the sensitivity switch, yeah. Yeah. Mm-hm. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't have the cans connected. Let's see, what did he say? What did he say? Yes. Oh, yes, a rising needle… Oh, yeah, I got it now. I got it. I remember now. A rising…"

"Now, let's see, do you think you have done something to me? Oh, I forgot to look at the meter!"

Doesn't inspire confidence.

So, you be willing to audit. You be willing to put up a good apparency, and your pc will be willing to confide in you, and you're going to win. You're not going to need tricks. You're going to need know-how, but you're not going to need tricks.

And the more tricks I have to give you, and the more Instructors your – the more tricks your Instructors have to give you, the less confidence your pc has in you.

So, you inspire some confidence, huh?

Audience: Yeah.

Thank you.

CASE ASSESSMENT PART 2 PAGE 15 1MACC-14 – 17.11.59

[[Category:Lectures]]
[[Category:Lectures 1MACC]]
[[Category:Lectures 1959]]