6107C05 SHSpec-25 Q and A Period -- Procedures in Auditing

     The meter may fall on a question, but it might not be the question you
asked; it might be protest or something else.  Find what the meter did fall on
and clean that up.

     Notice that when you run Description Processing on a problem, the problem
keeps changing.  That's one reason we don't do any fancy problems process on
rudiments.  We just keep the PC on the one he brought up.  Otherwise, we start
to get into all this alter-is.  Change as a level in the Prehav scale was
developed to cure alter-is.  It turns out that this was a stopgap.  What cures
alter-is is Problems.  Pc's who obsessively alter-is will run problems like a
rocket, since the solution is an alter-is of the problem.  You can check every
once in while with the PC, "How did you get that answer?" "What are you
doing?" On running problems you have to strongly do this.  You have to be sure
he really did recall a problem and didn't just get a notion of a foggy
confusion.  You don't have to check every command; just every few, randomly.
You have to use TR-4. If he repeats the command after you, he's set up a
circuit, so you repeat the command.  Don't do it if the PC has had a
cognition, since in that case, it can seem invalidative.  Let the PC stay in
communication.  Don't be robotic about using the repeat statement, but stay in
PT and don't put the command on a circuit.  The acks are half-acks, not full
stops to the cycle, and you can put a little insistence on the command when
you repeat it; this keeps it from sounding like a new command.  Always get the
command you asked answered.  You can ask him if he still has the command, if
he's comm-lagging and drifting.  Use this rarely and sparingly, since it does
distract the PC.  That's the common denominator of pcs' ARC breaks with
auditors.  Sudden change of attention is associated in all minds with
accidents, pain, etc.  So the auditor shifting the PC's attention suddenly
makes the PC feel hit.  You should wait until he looks vaguely in your
direction.  Don't jump on him.  The meter action will also tell you if the PC
is doing the command.  If it stops registering, you can suspect he's lost the
command.

     The auditing command is what it is and doesn't have any understood
additional agreements in it, so if you say, "Recall a problem," it doesn't
include, "Tell me about it," or "Don't tell me about it." And you can't make
agreements with the PC that he should tell you and let it be understood for
the rest of the process.  Other ARC breakers are the auditor giving you five
commands without letting you answer any of them, or the auditor saying nothing
-- giving no new command when the PC is waiting for it.  You cannot tell the
PC how to do the command in addition to giving the command.  He must
understand the command, but to give advice on how to do it is evaluation.
Also, if the PC makes a contract with the auditor for session length, that can
get tacitly into every command.  The PC will get stuck in the first command of
the session if you start with some agreement that wasn't repeated.  The
auditing track will bunch.  The only understanding you have with the PC is the
command given at the moment given.  The auditor's control of the PC extends to one command at a time.  The auditor does control the session.  And not with kindness or social niceties.  You can tell the PC, "You're answering things I haven't asked you.  Recall a problem." There's a polite way of telling a PC to shut up: a good solid nice acknowledgement as soon as the PC starts to diverge.  The mistake is not to control the PC.  But note that when you've announced yourself as a control unit, you'd better stay one, since the valence will immediately test you to see if you will.  If you chicken out, you'll get an ARC broken PC.  ARC breaks proceed from lack of control, i.e. from lack of auditing.  What you can get away with is what impingement you can make on the PC.  But it must not be misemotional impingement, or you'll bolster up the valence the PC is dramatizing, which is always a misemotional entity, under the surface.  You'll cave the PC in.  So exert tone 40 control with ARC.  There's a difference between overwhelming the PC and controlling the PC.  If you don't shoot misemotion at the PC, you can say anything to him.  It's a mistake to make any comment on anything the PC said or did, even if the PC asks for evaluation.  It's not up to the auditor to comment, just to acknowledge.  The auditor's opinion otherwise becomes a stable datum to the PC, and you are going to have to audit out the stable data you put in.  Don't even imply by your acknowledgements that you agree.  You're not in or out of agreement with them -- just in control.