Advertisement
“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology® pages index  |  Contact

Scientology: A ‘Golden Age of Tech’ A.D. 1996 (1)  or
     A remarkable tool if used as originally intended

(Includes a detailed historical overview of ‘drilling for technical purposes’)
(to other Scientology pages)

>> Do you want to help with preserving the original technology? <<  Consult my want list here!

Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are indicated.

        
“All right, so all it requires is the materials and persistence to make passable auditors.
        
 
Anybody who tells you different is just blocking the road. ...
 
 
Auditors become excellent only when Interneship and Cramming and Word Clearing are available.”
 
  L. Ron Hubbard            
  (from HCO PL 9 Dec 71 (Revised 22 Feb 75) “What? No Auditors?”)  


Back to “L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order (2)”  index page


The arrival of new information (7) -
A ‘Golden Age of Tech’ (GAT) A.D. 1996
 (page 1, index page)
(An account of the implementation of an extensive ‘drilling’ system)

A detailed study of the Golden Age of Tech and all that came with it that made its introduction in May 1996. Before I realized it had turned into an actual evaluation of this thing addressed as the Golden Age of Tech. My aim is not criticism per sé, but rather an attempt to optimize an existing situation by means of relating about recorded history.

 
Index:

    
Introduction, overview and origin of ‘Golden Age of Tech’ (GAT)
 
Foreword  &  The year 1996
(page 1)
  ‘Standard Tech Drills to Make You a Perfect Auditor’
                       - “Perfect” auditors or “passable” auditors?
- ‘Standard Tech Drills’  (Includes: ‘Future Drills’)
- Promotion phrase: “The Key to Professionalism is DRILL” (source unverified!)
  The steps of ‘Golden Age of Tech’
      - The drills (Theory - Patter - Standard Tech procedure - E-meter simulator - Session)
- Mark Super VII Quantum E-Meter
- ‘New Training Courses’ vs ‘Auditor Certainty Courses’
  How did ‘Golden Age of Tech’ come about?  &  Why-finding 
         - Why-finding as exerted by Religious Technology Center
- Going back to basics  vs  Resorting to other solutions
                (Includes: Additional quotations from L. Ron Hubbard regarding ‘basics’)
            - (1) Drills as a means for ‘handling’ auditors who wouldn't/couldn't audit because of misunderstoods?
- (2) Why-finding: Misunderstoods and a noted relation with the cancelled Primary Rundown?
- Why-finding: Situation or a Why?
 
Historical notices
 
A history of drilling (1956-76) 
(page 2)
      - A history of drilling - Introduction
- 1956-57 - Training Drills (TR's) 0-9
- 1965, Feb - E-Meter Drills
- 1965 - ‘Drills, Allowed’ vs ‘Out Tech and How to Get It in’
- 1969-70 - Session Drills: TR (100, 100-A,) 101, 102, 103 & 104
- 1971, Jun - CR0000 Drills
- 1971, early Sept - ‘A Talk on a Basic Qual’
- 1971, late Sept - Drills released for the HQS course
- 1971, Oct/Nov - Drills Courses (as announced by L. Ron Hubbard)
- Final rundown (1956-76)
- Drills courses vs Standard Dianetics & Academy Level 0-4/SHSBC checksheets
 
Various consequences and aspects of GAT, reviewed and evaluated
 
The rights of an auditor  
(page 3)
         - ‘Golden Age of Tech TIP’
- Auditor rights and recognition  (Includes: (1) Rights; (2) Unmocking working installations; (3) Which concern in regards to field auditors? & (4) Permanent certification for auditors)
  Learning by rote
  Time versus Purpose ...
  Use of drills:  Cramming Officer  vs  Academy Supervisor  
            - ‘Use of Drills in Cramming’
- ‘Inspection Before the Fact’
- Fast Flow  vs  Golden Age of Tech
  Becoming a Golden Age of Tech auditor  
            - Time factor  &  ‘Auditors made’ statistic
- (1) ‘An Army of Auditors’ (May 1996)
- (2) ‘A Golden Age of Ethics to Get Tech in’ (June 1998)
  Regarding the Golden Age of Tech ...
         - The “Wrong Why” exerted?  or  Inventing the wheel all over again
- About ‘no product’ and ‘arbitraries’ ...
  ‘Do What Ron Says’  &  The Department of Correction



 
Introduction, overview and origin of ‘Golden Age of Tech’ (GAT)

Back to Main Index Foreword  &  The year 1996 Golden Age of Tech (symbol)

Originally I intended my overview of the Golden Age of Tech to be just a fairly detailed research of all the aspects of it. As such I had released it in early March 2007. I received various responses that induced me to take a more thorough look at some of the issues involving Golden Age of Tech, I stepped into it and then it was not for long that it had turned into a rather extensive overview. I have attempted to address and give attention to the relevant parts of it, what it involved, and how it was dealt with when first introduced. I also added various annotations, make some logical deductions and consult with various quotations as found in the writings of L. Ron Hubbard. I also found that it was necessary to include a historical overview of the subject of drilling within the Scientology organization. It all became rather extensive and this drilling history I moved therefore to a page of its own. My analysis is by no means intend to be a subjective overview. I just attempt to tell a tale of actual history. In fact various arguments regularly forwarded by critics of this GAT have been disproven because of their incorrectness. On the other hand other arguments have been forwarded by me that still points a critical finger at some of that which this evolution of GAT involved, and that what it turned out to be.

The year is 1996. This is 10 years after that L. Ron Hubbard was pronounced dead. Then what is all this about “massive investigation and research”? Was this something that L. Ron Hubbard had overlooked? Did we not have the tech already? These are logical questions that rise into the mind. After all “massive investigation and research” do indicate certain happenings, it does relate that something has been going on. You would only resort to these things when something is not going as you may have wished that it be. From the ‘Inspector General Network Bulletin No. 22’ we learn that this research had begun “nearly a year ago”, this puts us at about mid-1995.

So, did L. Ron Hubbard miss out on something? We can positively conclude that L. Ron Hubbard does promote drilling. There are for example the basic training drills for the auditor in regards to communication. These are referred to as Training Routines (TR's). The ones presently in use are OT TR 0, TR 0 confronting, TR 0 bullbait, TR 1, 2, 2½, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 100, 100-A, 101, 102, 103 & 104 (see ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ & HCOB 17 Jul 69RB). Then we have the E-Meter drills, in 1965 there were 27 of them (EM 1-27), 1971 added 3 more. All these made up the bulk of all the drilling for technical purposes for quite a while. Then Golden Age of Tech moved things around little.

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index ‘Standard Tech Drills to Make You a Perfect Auditor’

This Golden Age of Tech evolution was introduced at the May 9th 1996 celebration by Mr. David Miscavige. It was announced as “training breakthroughs that would launce a new Golden Age of Tech for Scientology”.

Various programs had been devised to promote and implement this Golden Age of Tech. There was ‘Senior C/S Int Bulletin No. 165’, 10 May 96 “Steps to Create a Golden Age of Tech”. This was the issue that announced this new series of issues and programs covering all the facets. These were the so-called ‘Golden Age of Tech Series’. At it's release there were No. 165-0, -00, -1 to -17. Later that year followed a -18, -19 & -20. They were fairly widely distributed, primarily amongst staff, but only 1 of them particularly note that it was not for public handout. The data itself as found in these references can be considered commonly shared information, much of it is also relayed during public Scientology gatherings. Then it is found in magazines such as ‘The Auditor’ and promotional releases. These Series relate all the theories and the explanation behind the Golden Age of Tech and its facets. I would judge that the programs that were attached to them as Attachments would not have been suitable for public distribution! These Series may have been given out to the public however without these program attachments. These Series were all compiled and written (as indicated on them) by Mr. Ray Mithoff in his capacity of being the Senior C/S International. Each reference in this Series and in particular its program was addressing and aiming at implementation of a particular part of this Golden Age of Tech evolution in the Scientology organizations around the world. Each issue had a program attached to it which contained the targets to be done to implement that one part of the overall Golden Age of Tech plan. And they simply had to be complied with. One could not go around them. It was affecting everyone.

A listing of these can be consulted here below:  (pop-up window)
    List of references concerning ‘Golden Age of Tech’, includes ‘Golden Age of Tech Series’

 
Go back “Perfect” auditors or “passable” auditors?

The main object in regards to this Golden Age of Tech and all these Standard Tech Drills is basically about creating, this repeatedly referred to, perfect auditor.

        
“All you really have to do to get at least a minimum job of it is to get the materials and the students and keep them at it.
        
 
It takes a steady three or four weeks of work to make a Dianetic Auditor. At least you'd have that!
 
 
And it takes only a few more months, with the new Academy Checksheets to make Class IVs.
 
 
Tapes now exist that show how good auditing sounds.
 
 
————————
 
 
All right, so all it requires is the materials and persistence to make passable auditors.
 
 
Anybody who tells you different is just blocking the road.
 
 
Better auditors are made by good Course Supervisors.
 
 
Auditors become excellent only when Interneship and Cramming and Word Clearing are available.
 
 
...
 
 
We have run highly prosperous orgs in the ’50s with which the public was very, very happy, using auditors who were not one-tenth as well trained as those you would make just by getting the materials and a couple of guys down to it.
 
 
Yes, auditing can reach heights today that nobody ever dreamed of in the old days. And your auditors can also reach such heights eventually. But you begin with QUANTITY. And out of that will come quality.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 9 Dec 71 (Revised 22 Feb 75) “What? No Auditors?”)
 

The basic idea however with the Golden Age of Tech evolution as introduced in 1996 was to make them perfect from the very start. It appears that here we are starting out on the wrong foot from the beginning as the paper that started it all said:
        
“An Insufficient Quantity of Auditors to Make Planetary Clearing a Reality, Right Now in the Present Time, Due to the Inability to Invariably Make 100% Flubless, Standard and Perfect Auditors, in any Org on Earth.
(from ‘Inspector General Network Bulletin No. 22’, 10 May 96 “A New Golden Age of Tech (A Summary of Whys Found and Details of the Investigation)”)
        
The previously quoted reference HCO PL 9 Dec 71 “What? No Auditors?” seems very applicable for such a situation and offers the solution of first quantity and only then quality. Thus Golden Age of Tech proposes an altered or more precisely a reversed sequence.

 
Go back ‘Standard Tech Drills’

Although the Golden Age of Tech evolution consisted of various ingredients, the focus can be said to be about this drilling. ‘Senior C/S Int Bulletin 165-1’, 1 May 96 “Description of The Standard Tech Drills” says about this:
        
“Standard Tech Drills are a precise and complete line-up of drills which gradiently train students in every single technical action required to apply auditing 100% standardly. They provide an exact road to flawless application of tech for any auditor, whether a student in training on his Academy levels or a seasoned veteran.
        
 
There are literally hundreds of individual drills, and the entire line-up trains in precise application of every aspect of auditing, from rudiments to the most advance confidential actions.”
 

Standard Tech drills volumes
“The tools to make you a perfect auditor – 40 volumes of Standard Tech Drills – over 3,600 pages – covering every auditing skill from basic meter theory and study tech to running an ARC break to the most advanced procedures. These drills form an exact road to flawless application.”
(from page 4-5 of the ‘Golden Age of Tech’ brochure, issued May 96)

At its initial releases there were the following binders (40):
      Introduction to The Standard Tech Drills (1)
Study Tech Drills (2)
E-Meter Theory Drills (1)
Word Clearing Tech Drills (3)
Course Supervision Drills (3)
Basic Rudiments Drills (4)
Buttons Drills (1)
Cleaning a Read Drills (5)
O/W Tech Drills (5)
Full Rudiment Drills (3)
Technical Procedure Drills (8)
Prepared List Drills (3)
Tech Training Films (1)
     
We are informed that “As additional drills become available the list will be updated and reissued.”  (from ‘Senior C/S Int Bulletin 165-17, Attachment 2’, 1 May 96 “Use of Drills in Cramming Program”)

 
‘Future Drills’

‘Senior C/S Int Bulletin 165-1’, 1 May 96 “Description of The Standard Tech Drills” says about this:
        
“The new Standard Tech Drills for auditors are only the beginning. Many more technical drills covering more auditing procedures will appear in the future ... . When an auditor has passed all the drills on the basic techniques of auditing, there will be drills he can do for all manner of special rundowns and tech action ... .
        
 
... The basic principles upon which the drills for auditors are built apply to the actions and procedures for any technical post in Scientology. And so drills are also planned for Case Supervisors, Ds of P* (how to do interviews, give tech estimates, etc.), Cramming Officers, Examiners, De-PTSers, Debuggers, Qual Consultants/Interviewers and others!”
 
* D(s) of P, Director(s) of Processing.  Will interview you on matters concerning your auditing progress and the scheduling of your auditing.

And ‘Senior C/S Int Bulletin 165-5’, 1 May 96 “New Training Courses” says: “ The array of new drills which have been created is vast. There are literally hundreds, and hundreds more to come.”.

‘Golden Age of Tech’ Standard Tech Drill packs issued to date (March 2007)  (pop-up window)

 
Go back Promotion phrase: “The Key to Professionalism is DRILL”  (source unverified!)

The ‘Golden Age of Tech’ brochure (issued May 96) claims that “LRH says ‘the key to professionalism is DRILL’”. The problem here is that I have been unable to find the source of this exact phrase. Professionalism is referred to in amongst other two of the study tapes, but it relates nothing about some drills. So, where is this particular quotation deriving from?
We find this same phrase again used in ‘Senior C/S Int Bulletin 165-18’, 12 May 96 “Proper Use of Drills”.
The phrase is also used 2 times on the Golden Age of Tech page on the Internet site of the Advanced Saint Hill Organization (ASHO). It is used as an isolated sentence in the title and once again in the sentence: “They are drills from the heart and soul of the LRH statement, ‘the key to professionalism is DRILL.’. This was found during 2007 at http://www.scientology-asho.org/GoldenAgeofTech.htm, but not today. This can still be checked out with The Wayback Machine site, check here, external link, there are 6 links listed for 2007, you can click on either one.
Then we used to find it quoted on the L. Ron Hubbard Tribute site phrased as follows: “Over decades of growth in Scientology Academy training, drills developed by Mr. Hubbard have proved to be the cornerstone of any auditor's unshakable certainty of application. ‘The key to professionalism is DRILL,’ he wrote. ‘When one is flawless in drill, he looks professional and inspires confidence in the preclear.’” (it was found at this location http://www.lronhubbardtribute.org/To/speeches/lrhbd97/page03.htm at least until March 2007). An almost identical phrasing we find here (external link) (last checked: 10 Apr 2013).
This actually adds an additional phrase of which I also have been unable to verify its source. Also note that it is here referred to as something that he “wrote”, where the ‘Golden Age of Tech’ brochure notes that it is something he “says”. Of course this can be interpreted as to something that he ‘says’ in his writings. We may have to conclude then that it will not be found on any tape lecture as these are spoken word. In neither of these official Scientology websites we learn where these phrasings are taken from. (both links in the above are last visited 5 Mar 2007)
I find it rather noteworthy and puzzling that neither of these phrasing are found in any of the regular sources such as HCO PL's, HCOB's and released tape lectures. No source reference associates ‘professionalism’ directly with ‘drilling’.  If any can show me being in error or may know the source of these quotations please contact me!

It is however true that this datum could be inferred when we consult various other references in where L. Ron Hubbard talks about these things. A good example is HCOB 13 Sept 65 “Out Tech and How to Get It in”. It talks about the relation of a “skilled auditor” with “drills, drills, drills” and says: “If you drill auditors hard and repeat often enough basic auditing facts, they eventually disentangle themselves and begin to do a job of application.”  LRH.  The ‘Inspector General Network Bulletin No. 22’ quotes quite a bit of this reference. So far all may be well.

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index The steps of ‘Golden Age of Tech’
According to the brochure ‘Golden Age of Tech’ (issued May 96) it involves the following aspects:
    
  
 Drills:  E-Meter:
1. Theory Drills
2. Patter Drills

3. The Standard Tech Procedure Drills

4. The Hubbard E-Meter Drills Simulator

5. Session Drills
The Mark Super VII Quantum E-Meter
 Courses:
Study Certainty Course
Hubbard Professional Metering Course

Auditor Certainty Course

Here below the specifics of these are folded out in more detail:
(most of the theoretical descriptions in the text below has been compiled from or is directly taken from the ‘Golden Age of Tech’ brochure, issued May 96)

 
Go back The drills (Theory - Patter - Standard Tech procedure - E-meter simulator - Session)

1. Theory Drills (know LRHs technology on study and metering as well as you know your own name) - drilling theory materials. It's not theory study. It isn't a test. It's the application of drilling to learning the theory of a subject or teach a student the important datums of the subject
      
“The coach uses a prepared list of questions which he reads out to the student. The correct answers are listed on the drill sheet, as well as the exact LRH reference.”
(from brochure ‘Golden Age of Tech’, [May 96])
      
  It is noted that the initial release of the Theory Drills included only “a) Study Tech, and  b) basic theory of the E-Meter.” although we are informed “further ones may be added in the future”  (from ‘Senior C/S Int Bulletin 165-1’, 1 May 96 “Description of The Standard Tech Drills”). Indeed we find a third Theory Drills pack release issued later that very month: ‘Standard Tech Theory Drills: Theory Drills, Keeping Scientology Working’, issued 10 May 96.  
  Critical note:  This way you may be able to utter the datums flublessly, but it may not have given you the conceptual understanding.  

2. Patter Drills (a breakthrough in auditor presence and confidence) - drilling the commands for every auditing skill, what question to ask the preclear
      
“How it works is this: you have a list of commands and, seated in front of a wall, you read from the list and say the commands until you know them without any hesitation, and can deliver them in any sequence. You'll know them down cold. So when you're in an auditing session, you'll never have to think about what command to use next.”
(from ‘The Auditor 264 (US Edition)’, [late Jan 97])
      
  Critical note:  In particular Patter Drills have been met with resistance. It has been argued that L. Ron Hubbard has not made reference to or recommended something about sitting in front of some wall. Although we have HCOB 17 Jul 69 “Dianetic Command Training Drills” which gave the information how these Training Drills were to be performed. TR 101 does provide for a very similar approach and for the same purpose. It also does mention: “Student seated facing a wall.”. These drills were first introduced in HCOB 16 Jul 69 “Urgent - Important” in where L. Ron Hubbard announced that he had “developed four new Dianetic TRs. They are TR 101, 102, 103 and 104.”. The references laying out these steps however were written and issued by others. Brian Livingston was responsible for the release of HCOB 17 Jul 69 “Dianetic Command Training Drills”. For reason that it was not actually written by L. Ron Hubbard it was later reissued as a BTB 17 Jul 69R (Revised 19 Feb 74) “Dianetic Command Training Drills 101 & 102”. This in turn was cancelled by BTB 10 Dec 74 VI “Cancellation of Bulletins 1969” and was reinstated 2 years later on 3 December 1976 as a BTB. On 9 December 1976 (6 days later) it was reissued once again as an HCOB, but this time it was attributed to L. Ron Hubbard with added explanatory text written in the ‘I’ form. (For sure a confusing release history track, you can find more data about this here (separate window).)
Another argument is that there exists a method in use introduced at a later date, and referred to by L. Ron Hubbard, to handle that which Patter Drills aimed to solve. See below:
 
 
“CHINESE SCHOOL,  as very few Westerners have ever seen a Chinese or Arab school in progress, it is very easy for them to miss the scene when one says Chinese School. The term has been used to designate an action where an instructor or officer, with a pointer, stands up before an assembled class and taps a chart or org board and says each part of it. A Chinese class sings out in unison (all together) in response to the teacher. They participate! Chinese School, then, is an action of class vocal participation. It is a very lively, loud affair. It sounds like chanting. It is essentially a system that establishes instant thought responses so that the student, given ‘2 x 2’ thinks instantly ‘4.’ You could teach the laws of listing and nulling, The Auditor's Code, axioms and so on in this way. There are two steps in such teaching. (a) the instructor taps and says what it is, then asks the class what it is and they chant the answer; (b) when the class has learned by being told and repeating, the instructor now taps with the pointer and asks and the class chants the correct answer. Anything can be taught by Chinese School that is to be learned by rote; (HCO PL 13 May 72)”
(from ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’* (released 1976))
 
  We have to face however the existence of Training Drill 101. And it does seem like that L. Ron Hubbard actually did approve of this drill TR 101. The Chinese School as a rebuttal to Golden Age of Tech drilling does not seem to be a very applicable one.  

3. The Standard Tech Procedure Drills (what do you do?) - drilling every situation that you could possibly encounter in session while auditing a particular process
      
“These drills contain precisely scripted sheets, which describe a particular auditing situation and give the Standard Tech handling below it, together with the exact LRH reference and even the correct words to use. The coach simply feeds a question to the student auditor, who then must be able to spit out the answer to that question without any hesitation.”
(from ‘The Auditor 264 (US Edition)’, [late Jan 97])
      
  Critical note:  Per ‘The Auditor 264’ this drill was “derived from an LRH talk to Class XII auditors”. Be it noted here that a group of Class XII auditors is not identical with new publics or lower level auditors, and their training isn't either. The call for perfection on lower level training, as per reference to this article in The Auditor 264, is therefore an incorrectly included datum!  

Drills simulator4. The Hubbard E-Meter Drills Simulator (auditing training leaps into the space age) - drilling every kind of E-Meter read and phenomenon with the use of the Drills Simulator device that produces realistic meter reactions at the touch of a button –ticks, falls, dirty needles, rock slams, rocket reads, theta bops, and floating needles, or any read–.

5. Session Drills (the final step in creating the perfect auditor) - drilling sessions, including everything the preclear says, everything the auditor says, and every E-Meter read and reaction to be produced on the Drills Simulator. It's easy and straightforward to coach. Every situation you could encounter in auditing that procedure is built into the drill.
      
“These drills are fully pre-scripted sessions, which include every auditor command, all preclear responses, every E-Meter read and all other meter phenomena to be produced by the coach. The drill recreates an actual session, and as the coach reads from the script, it tells him exactly what to say, the exact on-Source response by the student and exactly what reads the coach is to produce. And how are these reads produced? By using the innovation that makes it possible to create any read on a meter, exactly as it would appear in a session: The Hubbard E-Meter Drills Simulator.”
(from ‘The Auditor 264 (US Edition)’, [late Jan 97])
      
  Critical note:  It has been argued that this device has been named the Hubbard E-Meter Drills Simulator. For the simple reason that not even the claim has been made that L. Ron Hubbard in any way would have been involved in designing or thinking up this device. As a comparison the E-Meter itself is not named or referred to as the Hubbard E-Meter either (originally named the Mathisson E-Meter, as designed by Volney Mathisson during the early 50's).  

 
Go back Mark Super VII Quantum E-Meter

It also introduced a new E-Meter The Mark Super VII Quantum E-Meter (the biggest breakthrough in the history of metering). It adds something to the original Mark Super VII E-Meter that is referred to as variable sensitivity. The Quantum automatically adjusts the sensitivity as the Tone Arm changes. Use it and you get exactly the same read on your E-METER for the exact same amount of charge - no matter where the Tone Arm is set!

This side by side comparison shows the actual difference in size of reads displayed on a Quantum as compared to all previous meter models, both E-Meters are reacting to the same charge at the same TA, and this is what an auditor would see in session.
Quantum E-Meter comparison
The Mark Super VII shows a quarter inch small fall. However, the Quantum constantly adjusts the sensitivity as the Tone Arm moves up or down. The reads on the Quantum are huge and unmistakable.
       (from page 16-17 of ‘Golden Age of Tech’ brochure, issued May 96)

This may actually be tricky because if you do not adapt properly to this new E-Meter you may(?) mistake an insignificant read for a big one. The question then is if it falls within the reality of the preclear? Can it be run? It would not be very good for a preclear when you are poking around when there isn't really something. Either way this adapting probably will not give particular problems.

You did not have to purchase a new E-Meter. If you have already a mark Super VII E-Meter you could send in your E-Meter to Golden Era Productions and they then would convert it to a Quantum E-Meter.

Part of this Golden Age of Tech evolution also involved the development of the so-called Auditor Certainty Courses (special courses for the most valuable beings on the planet). Its aim was to implement all that which the Golden Age of Tech was designed for. This is where you would do all these Standard Tech Drills, or any you may have missed according to your level of training. You would receive your own Technical Individual Program (your TIP), designed to fit your needs as an auditor. First step would be to commence the Study Certainty Course, where you do all the new Study Drills as per the study technology (offered free of charge would you enroll on the Auditor Certainty Program). then if you haven't done the new Pro TR course, with Clay Table Processing, then that is your next step. Then the Hubbard Professional Upper Indo TR Course if you haven't done that previously. Next is the Hubbard Professional Metering Course, with all the new drilling. Finally then the Auditor Certainty Course up to your level of training. More about these courses in next section.

 
Go back ‘New Training Courses’  vs  ‘Auditor Certainty Courses’

“Don't forget, ALL your auditors must make it through ALL the drills we've just issued ... .”
(from ‘Senior C/S Int Bulletin 165-5’, 1 May 96 “New Training Courses”).

As opposed to:
        
... the Cramming Officer can pick out from a great big, long, thick pack of drills he can pick the drills that the fellow has been flunking in his auditing and make him drill those things. ...”          LRH
(from lecture “A Talk on a Basic Qual”, given on 5 Sept 71)
        

New students:  For those that were no Trained Auditors prior to the release of Golden Age of Tech evolution new courses for each level had been compiled and released for this purpose. They contained within all these new drills. These were the New Training Courses.

Previously trained auditors:  However for those that were already Trained Auditors. Well, they had to catch up! All these new drills were assembled in the Auditor Certainty Courses. One course for each level with all drills in chronological order within each of these courses. And the message given is that everyone had to do these, one way or the other.

But prior to enrolling on these New Training Courses or these Auditor Certainty Course, certain prerequisite courses were mandated as follows:
    1)  Student Hat:  The student had to be examined on this:  a) If you scored 100% you just do the Study Certainty Course covering only the new study drills; b) If 85% or higher score you restudy the items you missed and the Study Certainty Course; c) Below 85% you retread the Student Hat course covering all items missed and the new study drills; d) If never done this course one simply does the new Student Hat course that covers everything.    
  2)  Hubbard Professional TR Course:  The student must have completed this course:  a) If he had missed any parts of the modern-day version of this course (particularly the new Clay Table steps) he must do them and then redo all the TR's to a full pass. Redo of the TR's after Clay Table is mandatory; b) If never done this course, he must do it.  
  3)  Hubbard Professional Upper Indoctrination Course:  The student must have done this course.  It is required to have done the version that included all of the theory and lectures on Upper Indoc TR's. The student however may wish to retread the course if also the Professional TR Course had been done to ensure that his lower TR's are really in.  
  4)  Hubbard Professional Metering Course:  This is mandatory for all students as it is an all-new course and no previous metering course certs qualify in replacing this course.  
          (adapted from ‘Senior C/S Int Bulletin 165-6’, 1 May 96 “Auditor Certainty Courses”)

The new student now will go ahead with the New Training Courses. The previously Trained Auditor now does the new Auditor Certainty Courses. Every one of them and up to his level of training.

And then? Well, next you do your Interneship all over again. Back to being an apprentice.

The ‘Senior C/S Int Bulletin 166’, 30 Apr 96 “The New Auditor Certainty Courses” makes the claim that “An Auditor Certainty Course does not retread a person on the theory he studied” previously. It argues that “Instead each course trains the auditor on the basic skills taught on each course he completed earlier”. It adjudicates this as being “an extremely workable arrangement”.
It does seem though that various steps are being done again, and one is also made subject to be tested out on things one had done already (and this may have been a long time ago). This Hubbard Professional Metering Course was even mandatory, which for any previously trained professional auditor would be an actual retread! Not anywhere is made consideration towards the previous proven skills of a particular auditor which may work as an invalidation.
Imagine a doctor in a hospital that has been working there for 30 years or so, and quite successfully. Now we tell that guy: “Well listen here ... We have this here. Our new training program. As you have not done these practicals here –and who knows you may have missed out on some things–, well, we need you to go back a couple of paces. We are going to make a PERFECT doctor out of you!”. Of course this is all very nice ...

See for further arguments made chapter entitled “The rights of an auditor ”.

Go to index


Back to Main Index How did ‘Golden Age of Tech’ come about?  &  Why-finding

An overview of the various reasoning regarding Golden Age of Tech coming into being. Offered side by side with annotations and referencing from L. Ron Hubbard on the matter. The question arises if one has gone back to basics (find out when and why things didn't work anymore, and correct/reinstate accordingly) or that one has resorted to thinking up new unusual solutions?

 
Go back Why-finding as exerted by Religious Technology Center

This is laid out in ‘Inspector General Network Bulletin No. 22’, 10 May 96 “A New Golden Age of Tech (A Summary of Whys Found and Details of the Investigation)”. This writing was compiled by Mr. David Miscavige. Its distribution was basically only to executive councils, and all org tech & network personnel. This is not everyone. I will only quote from this 20-page writing sparesomely, my main focus will be to attempt to briefly lay out the essence of the things that it relays. Much of this same data by the way is also found in fairly great detail in ‘The Auditor 261 (US Edition)’, [Aug-Sept 96], see article “The Best Just Became the Ultimate” & ‘The Auditor 264 (US Edition)’, [late Jan 97], see article “The Discovery That Led to a Golden Age of Tech”.

The aim and the setout of this study:
        
“Numerous events, beginning nearly a year ago, have brought us to a position today where we have the greatest potential for technical results in our history. The events I am referring to concern the massive investigation and research to determine exactly what is required for making 100% perfect auditors in any organization and in sufficient quantity to actually clear the planet.”
        
In this research so-called WHY-finding from the Data Series was used, or so the bulletin says, as per HCO PL 12 Aug 74 “Whys Open the Door”: “A REAL WHY OPENS THE DOOR TO HANDLING”  LRH.

The presentation of the problem encountered was stated as:  “An Insufficient Quantity of Auditors to Make Planetary Clearing a Reality, Right Now in the Present Time, Due to the Inability to Invariably Make 100% Flubless, Standard and Perfect Auditors, in any Org on Earth.”.

The solution was summarized into the following 3 why's and their handlings:  
(the why's and proposals for handling in the text below -in the red square- have been directly taken from ‘Inspector General Network Bulletin No. 22’, 10 May 96)

1.  Insufficient Drilling to Obtain Perfection
– The handling called for drills that are sufficiently thorough to achieve nothing short of perfection in an auditor.
      
“Students were drilling ‘to a win’ (‘I've had a great win! I'm done with this drill now.’) ... or once they got it right, they'd think they were done and sign it off (‘Wow! I got it! I did the drill once all the way through!’) ... or sometimes would never drill at all (‘I'm fast flow. I don't need to do this drill.’).”
“What the students failed to realize is that this type of drilling misses the real point of drilling. For drilling something isn't done to a win, it's done to achieve flawless application.”

(from ‘The Auditor 264 (US Edition)’, [late Jan 97])
      
  Critical note:  All this is already covered by the existing definitions of drilling in use. Therefore it doesn't need any unusual solution, only clearing misunderstoods and probably a Course Supervisor that oversees this. See below:  
 
“DRILLING,  that action done over and over until it is smooth, competent and professional. (OODs 7 Jun 70)”
“DRILLS,  1. just actions the student has to become familiar with before doing processes. The actual process is never used as a drill. Because it is left unflat. A drill takes the action the auditor will use when doing a process and gets him familiar with it. (HCO PL 17 May 65, Tech Div, Qual Div, Urgent CCHs)  ...  3. disciplined, repetitious exercise as a means of teaching and perfecting a skill or procedure. (ED 118 Flag)  ...”
(from ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’* (released 1976))
 

2.  The Blind Have Been Leading the Blind
– The handling then, was to create drills that tell a coach exactly how to properly coach another auditor even if he himself has technical deficiencies, thus handling the aspect of an untrained coach (“blind”) coaching an untrained student (“blind”).
 
“How were these students drilling? With a coach. But who was the coach? In most cases, it was his twin. And how well had his twin studied? Usually to the same level that he had. And this led to the discovery that opened the door to a Golden Age of Tech: The Blind had been leading the Blind!
(from ‘The Auditor 264 (US Edition)’, [late Jan 97])
 
       Critical note:  The solution offered basically was: ‘Patter Drills’, ‘Standard Tech Procedure Drills’ & ‘Session Drills’. The impression has been given as if this was a new discovery of a recent date. As if L. Ron Hubbard would have missed out on this. In HCO PL 16 Apr 65 II “Drills, Allowed” L. Ron Hubbard does lay out the basic practical drills that are allowed. About the remainder he says: “Other Practical Drills are abolished. Reasons: They consume time uselessly, suppress actual processes and mess up data and cases.”. A further argument from L. Ron Hubbard is laid out in the tape lecture entitled “A Talk on a Basic Qual”, given on 5 Sept 71. Which involved “Drills Course”, but for use in the “Cramming Section”. See for analysis respective sections in later chapter entitled: “A history of drilling (1956-76)”.       

3.  Lack of Adequate and Established Passing Standards Resulting in Permissive Supervision Due to Confusing “Fast Flow” with the Subject of Drilling
– The handling is to create an exact passing standard all supervisors can adhere to, and that passing standard is perfection. Instead of letting students go through meter drills until they “have a win”, we require they be perfect. To ensure such, we define what “perfect” means as regards such drills.
       “The Fast Flow Student passes courses by attestation at Certs and Awards to the effect that he (a) has enrolled properly on the course, (b) has paid for the course, (c) has studied and understands the materials, (d) has done the drills, (e) can produce the result required in the materials.”          LRH   (underlining is mine)
(from HCOB 13 Aug 72R (Corrected and Reissued 15 Aug 72) “Fast Flow Training”)
It appears quite obviously that even being some Fast Flow student that one is not exempted from doing any drills!
      
  Critical note:  This handling proposed is like saying that all which L. Ron Hubbard and those that assisted and worked with him had written and advised did not suffice. The whole training side of Scientology has rules and guidances for basically every part of how to go about things. It seems also here to be a matter of people not using and enforcing study basics. It is not required that all be ‘perfect’. Per the definition of drill (as found in ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976)) it is till one is familiar with it, and until it is smooth, competent and professional.  

Either way these above points basically make up the framework of what this Golden Age of Tech was about.

This ‘Inspector General Network Bulletin No. 22’ goes on in fair detail about the research performed, observations made, imperfections noted, and what should be done in order to correct it. There is a bit about TR's, about E-Meters and the idea forwarded to drilling all these things tills one knows it down cold. The bulletin is intermixed with various quotations of L. Ron Hubbard on various matters and so on. The bulletin ends with saying that:
        
“The investigation, the Whys found and their handlings give us the brightest future ever. A new Golden Age is at hand. The darkness of misapplication has ended.”
        

 
Go back Going back to basics  vs  Resorting to other solutions

Some notes have to be made here in regards of the importance of going back to basics in order to resolve some problem or to reverse some downgoing trend. An interesting reference addressing this is quoted here below:
        
“STANDARD TECH came in with a crash just by teaching the most basic of basics as the most important actions. Cases which hadn't moved for years when handled by Case Supervisors and auditors who skipped all the airy fairy nonsense and just did the usual ordinary basic actions suddenly flew.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 9 Nov 68 “Standard Admin”)
        

The question that inevitably emerges is if the Golden Age of Tech evolution has been a measure to reach for alternate or unusual solutions rather then simply going back to basics?

        
“Our technology has not been discovered by a group. True, if the group had not supported me in many ways, I could not have discovered it either. But it remains that if in its formative stages it was not discovered by a group, then group efforts, one can only assume, will not add to it or successfully alter it in the future. I can only say this now that it is done. There remains, of course, group tabulation or coordination of what has been done, which will be valuable—only so long as it does not seek to alter basic principles and successful applications.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working”)
        

The general impression is that it goes more into the direction of using an artifice instead of going back and finding out where one went off the rails. Why-finding in essence is about determining when things still were going well. Then one would find out what had changed (what action got introduced or abandoned). Then one would reinstate the former action(s) after which all should be going well again. For 46 years we did not have this Golden Age of Tech solution, it is not that we can say that this would have been a serious missing factor during all these years. Then, why would it be necessary to have it now?

 
Additional quotations from L. Ron Hubbard regarding ‘basics’

        
“The basics and fundamentals are stated early in the period of development and have not changed.
        
 
The ‘newest and latest’ is usually a recovery of basics and better statements of them.
 
 
That things which were true early in the subjects are still true.”          LRH
(from HCOB 12 Jun 70 “Programming of Cases”)
 

        
“Inevitably, when any new approach or process is released, some will instantly assume that all ‘older’ (actually more basic) data has been cancelled. There is no statement to that effect. ...
        
 
A subject can be reorganized and made more workable. That was done in 1969 for Dianetics. BUT IT HAD NEVER BEEN UNWORKABLE! ...
 
 
This idea that the ‘old’ is always cancelled by anything ‘new’ has its root in the idea that a later order cancels earlier orders, which is true. But orders are one thing and Tech basics another.”          LRH
(from HCOB 30 Jun 70R (Revised 6 Mar 73) “VIII Actions”)
 

        
“In C/Sing lately I have had spectacular case wins just using basics. Like getting the Pc in session, F/Ning what was asked not something else, false TA correction, false reads on W/Hs, catching a forcing of the Pc's attention onto the meter and his TA, etc, etc.
        
 
Just fundamental auditing. And it has sent bogged cases soaring.”          LRH
(from HCOB 19 Apr 75 “Out Basics and How to Get Them in”)
 

 
Go back (1) Drills as a means for ‘handling’ auditors who wouldn't/couldn't audit because of misunderstoods?

The following is being related to us in ‘Senior C/S Int Bulletin 165-6’, 1 May 96 “Auditor Certainty Courses” in the section entitled “LRH Solution”:  (full section has been printed here)

        
“LRH SOLUTION  
        
 
The subject and idea of drills was an LRH solution to the three reasons why auditing is not flubless. Those three reasons, as given in his Sept. 71 lecture, ‘Talk on a Basic Qual’ are: 1) The person does not have the data, 2) he has misunderstoods on the materials or 3) he has not drilled the materials well enough to apply them standardly.
 
 
In this same lecture, LRH discussed how Qual could use drills, in handling trained auditors who wouldn't or couldn't audit, owing to misunderstoods.
 
 
You may ask, what do drills have to do with MUs? The answer underscores the effectiveness of these new drills.
 
 
Over the past several years we have put out many different retread courses. Yet we found that even when auditors restudied the theory, they did not necessarily return to the chair. The reason, we now know, is that auditors weren't drilled on what to do and also that further study did not always pinpoint their misunderstoods. Per HCOB 25 June 71R, BARRIERS TO STUDY, misunderstoods had to be present if the ability to do had disappeared. Drilling, we have since found, pinpoints the MUs preventing application. Through drilling it becomes obvious what HCOB the auditor misunderstood, and since each is referenced right in the drill, we can clear the MU on the spot.
 
 
For example, the student begins a drill and it is going along fine. Then he encounters a question he cannot answer or, more noticeably, cannot perform an action. With the HCOB reference right there in the drill, it is simple enough to locate the area of misunderstoods and zero in rapidly to find and clear that MU. In other words, by locating what he can't DO, we then obtain an accurate analysis of where his real misunderstoods are.
 
 
So in addition to making perfect auditors who know everything about applying the tech, our drills have the additional benefit of unburdening all auditor confusion from misunderstoods.”
 

It does claim in the above (I requote here): “In this same lecture, LRH discussed how Qual could use drills, in handling trained auditors who wouldn't or couldn't audit, owing to misunderstoods.”. It talks quite a bit about misunderstoods in that lecture, although not in relation to that drilling would “benefit of unburdening all auditor confusion from misunderstoods”. It appears that the bulletin offers an interpretation that I do not find supported or justified in this lecture “A Talk on a Basic Qual”. Please correct if I would be in error, but the lecture does not make this association. They are referred to as separate topics in the lecture, 3 components, “Knowledge, drill, misunderstood word.” as to “what flubless auditing consists of”  LRH.  The idea forwarded however is that “The subject and idea of drills was an LRH solution to the three reasons why auditing is not flubless.”, as if drilling is the sole answer to the problems, which it is not.

        
“So, your Cramming Officer has to choose amongst these things: the guy hasn't got the knowledge, the drill is out, or he has got a misunderstood word. And Cramming gets to be a piece of cake because to that you only have to add observation.”          LRH
(from lecture “A Talk on a Basic Qual”, given on 5 Sept 71)
        
        
sound  Sound snippet (0:17) 
        


About misunderstoods:

        
“Now, there are several ways that tech gets lost and first and foremost amongst them is the misunderstood word. And the student comes to you and he says ‘HCOB something or other, written by so and so actually is in conflict with HCOB boff-boff and so on, and we don't know whether to turn on the E-meter with the right hand or the left hand. We are all confused and I can't make it out.’
        
 
And you say, ‘Look, it's a misunderstood word, son, let's find it.’
 
 
‘Oh no! no, no, no, no, it's not a misunderstood word!! It's actually all these things are in conflict with everything else, and everything is in conflict with it and so on. I'm going mad!’
 
 
You say, ‘Now look, take it easy, be quiet, be calm and sit down, pick up the cans, and let's find out where on that earlier bulletin there is a word you don’t understand.’
 
 
And so he reads it Method 2* to you and he has never understood HCOB, he has not understood remimeo, and he doesn't know the word at, he doesn't know the word such, and he has never figured out what is the word this. And after you have cleaned all this up and got it all nicely looked up, now you say, ‘Read the bulletins.’
 
 
‘Ah, yah.’ he says, ‘There is nothing, no conflict there. What was I talking about?’
 
 
All of these wild technical confusions begin with a misunderstood word and in actual fact don't exist at all.”          LRH
(from lecture “A Talk on a Basic Qual”, given on 5 Sept 71)
 
        
sound  Sound snippet (1:55) 
        

This ain't got much to do with the subject of drilling. And it may very well be so that misunderstoods are being located while drilling (it is likely that you will), but it's just that L. Ron Hubbard does not make mention of this or makes a point out of that on that lecture.

Interesting here is that another bulletin in this series, i.e. ‘Senior C/S Int Bulletin 165-18’, 12 May 96 “Proper Use of Drills”, relates about that one is not to mix up the drilling with the subject of clearing misunderstoods. It says:
        
“Of course, it can happen that a student won't be able to do the drill because of misunderstoods. ...
        
 
However, one should not allow even these drills to degenerate into just another theory study. Students do not get onto the Theory Drill or Standard Tech Procedure Drill until they have done their study. And the purpose of these drills isn't to examine the student or get into an ‘expanded checkout.’ Rather, their purpose is to drill the student on all fundamental basics.”
 

 
Go back (2) Why-finding: Misunderstoods and a noted relation with the cancelled Primary Rundown?

Although it is mentioned at various places how L. Ron had envisioned or “what this Golden Age of Tech represents as regards the fulfillment of an LRH dream” (Mr. Norman Starkey at the 1996 Auditor's Day Event, quoted from ‘The Auditor 261 (US Edition)’, [Aug-Sept 96]). Still it all appears largely based on an interpretation of this so-called LRH intention.

It says in ‘The Auditor 264 (US Edition)’, [late Jan 97]:
        
“In his famous lecture, ‘A Talk on a Basic Qual,’ LRH delineated the three reasons why an auditor would not be flubless: He didn't have knowledge of the materials; he had misunderstood words which were preventing his application; or he hadn't sufficiently drilled. Therefore, these three specific areas were looked into, in order to isolate the exact reason all auditors weren't training to a level of flublessness.”
        
Now, let's relist these 3 reasons:
    1.  “He didn't have knowledge of the materials;”
  2.  “he had misunderstood words which were preventing his application;”
  3.  “or he hadn't sufficiently drilled.”

It is phrased on the lecture “A Talk on a Basic Qual”, given on 5 Sept 71 as follows:
        
“Now, auditing is[n't] [sic] flubless either because they don't know or they haven't drilled, or because of misunderstood words, and that is the only three reasons. They don't know, they haven't drilled, or they have a misunderstood word. ...
        
 
So you really have got it in the bag, and that's what flubless auditing consists of, see? Knowledge, drill, misunderstood word.”          LRH
 
        
sound  Sound snippet 1 (0:32) 
        
 
sound  Sound snippet 2 (0:14) 
 

Then ‘The Auditor’ continues to address these areas:
“First, knowledge of materials was reviewed. For the past 10 years, an intensive project has been ongoing to get all LRH material on-Source and issued so that it is available to all Scientologists.”  It was concluding that we had all HCOBs, all tapes, all course packs”.

But already since 1971:
        
“The complete checksheet and pack for Dianetics is readily available to orgs from Pubs*.
        
 
Checksheets and packs for every Academy Level are easily obtained from Pubs Org.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 9 Dec 71 (Revised 22 Feb 75) “What? No Auditors?”)
 

‘The Auditor’ continues with:
“Second, misunderstoods were looked into. ... It was found that students were using word clearing tech while they studied, and although their application of it could be improved in many instances, they were looking up their words.”
It concluded: “Therefore, if it wasn't knowledge of materials, and it wasn't misunderstoods...  The area of drilling was then inspected. And here the first breakthrough occurred.”. And then it gets into “... lack of adequate drill to produce perfection” and “...the Blind have been leading the Blind”. And then into the solution “1. Patter Drills”, “2. Standard Procedure Drills” & “3. Session Drills”.

Basically the whole Golden Age of Tech evolution turned to focusing on drilling. But wait a minute here. What was that again about misunderstoods? Yes, it was concluded that “they were looking up their words”. Now does it suffice to do just that? I depends on if the student was able to correctly apply that what he had studied and it thus could be shown that he didn't had “misunderstood words which were preventing his application”.


Well, it does seem like that there were misunderstoods that had been passed by just like that in regards to the 3 Why's found by Religious Technology Center:

“1.  Insufficient Drilling to Obtain Perfection”
 

If we go back little to the arguments forwarded by ‘The Auditor 264 (US Edition)’, [late Jan 97]:  “Students were drilling ‘to a win’ (‘I've had a great win! I'm done with this drill now.’) ... or once they got it right, they'd think they were done and sign it off (‘Wow! I got it! I did the drill once all the way through!’) ... or sometimes would never drill at all (‘I'm fast flow. I don't need to do this drill.’).”

 
       “What the students failed to realize is that this type of drilling misses the real point of drilling.”       
       This sounds more like a misunderstood about what drills stands for then a lack of actually doing drills. Drilling as per ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976) is “that action done over and over until it is smooth, competent and professional” or “actions the student has to become familiar with before doing processes” or “disciplined, repetitious exercise as a means of teaching and perfecting a skill or procedure”. So why not getting the student define these words properly and he then will be able to perform proper application.       
      
Or did one skip drilling because “The effort to get students through courses and get pcs processed in orgs was considered best handled by reducing materials or deleting processes from grades. The pressure exerted to speed up student completions and auditing completions was mistakenly answered by just not delivering.”  LRH  (from HCO PL 17 Jun 70 “Technical Degrades”).
      

“2.  The Blind Have Been Leading the Blind”
       If the coach be blind then how got he to be blind? Taken that the basic outset of Scientology is conceptual understanding. There is study technology and a whole variety of tools available aimed to get the coach and the student through these materials. Now, if you actually have the right material, and we have been assured conclusively that we do have this. Then if it be that some blind is leading the blind, why then would he/they have been blind?       
      
“Whenever a person has a confused idea of something or believes there is some conflict of ideas IT IS ALWAYS TRUE THAT A MISUNDERSTOOD WORD EXISTS AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT CONFUSION.
  There is not also misunderstood ideas. There is only the misunderstood word which breeds, then, huge towering wrong ideas.”          LRH

(from HCOB 31 Aug 71 (Revised) “Confused Ideas”)
      
      
“AT THE BOTTOM OF ALL ALTERATION OF MEANING OR ACTION IS A MISUNDERSTOOD WORD.”          LRH
(from HCOB 4 Sept 71 II “Alterations”)
      

“3.  Lack of Adequate and Established Passing Standards Resulting in Permissive Supervision Due to Confusing ‘Fast Flow’ with the Subject of Drilling”
       It appears rather obvious here that this would be a misunderstood about the rules of Fast Flow. HCOB 13 Aug 72R (Corrected and Reissued 15 Aug 72) “Fast Flow Training” does say about this Fast Flow Student that he only then can attest when he amongst other “(d) has done the drills”. So in case that there would have been “permissive supervision” then the Course Supervisor should simply clear his misunderstood here. This being done it should get in use the “adequate and established passing standards” as found in already existing policy.       


Now, why is all this? Well, once we had this Primary Rundown. The product of this rundown is noted as follows:
        
“THE PRODUCT AT THIS POINT IS A STUDENT WHO KNOWS HOW TO STUDY AND WILL BE ABLE TO USE WHAT HE STUDIES.”          LRH
(from HCOB 4 Apr 72 “Tech Div Primary Rundown”)
        
Its aim was superliteracy:
        
“Super-Literate, super-superiority in size, quality, number or degree. Literacy — the ability to read and write. What is really needed is the ability to comfortably and quickly take data from a page and be able at once to apply it. Anyone who could do that would be Super-Literate. Super-Literacy is the end product of a Primary Rundown.”
        
            (from ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1978 edition), page 339)   
It went about it as follows:
        
“Primary Rundown:  This course consists of thoroughly clearing the definitions of many basic words especially the small words such as ‘of,’ ‘at,’ ‘so,’ etc. and results in a person who can get the exact concept of what he reads and can literally visualize the materials he studies and becomes what is called in Scientology a ‘Super-Literate.’”     (from page 11)
        
 
“The Primary Rundown consists of word clearing, a technique for locating and handling every misunderstood word the person has ever had, and study technology. It makes a student super-literate. Being a super-literate is like hearing and seeing and reading for the first time. Reading a text or instruction or book is comfortable. One has it in conceptual form. One can apply the material learned. It is a new state.”     (from page 210)”
 
            (from ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1978 edition))   

According to what I have been able to confirm it has not been in use since 1979. Since 1995 it is noted as an action that is to be released again in some future. At present (March 2007) it still has not been released.

Regarding these misunderstoods noted in regards to the coming into being of the Golden Age of Tech evolution, would it have been different if the Primary Rundown never would have been taken out of use? An interesting question it is!

A detailed study about this Primary Rundown is found here (separate window).

 
Go back Why-finding: Situation or a Why?

        
“I have just reviewed a number of attempted evaluations and was struck by the similarity of errors in them. None of these evaluations would have reached any ideal scene or even improved the existing scene.
        
 
The real reason for this is that the majority of them had a highly generalized situation such as ‘Bidawee Biscuit Company Failing’ or ‘Stats down from last year.’ They then proceeded on a data trail and got a ‘why.’
 
 
In these cases the why they found was actually the situation!
 
 
Each of them had failed to use the data trail to find the situation. They were using the data trail to find a why!
 
 
The evals* then had no why.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 18 Jul 74 “Situation Correction”)
 
* evals.  Short for evaluations.

Why-finding of Religious Technology Center reiterated, summarized and commented upon:
      1.  Insufficient Drilling to Obtain Perfection
– The handling called for drills that are sufficiently thorough to achieve nothing short of perfection in an auditor.
     
Question: “Why did one not drill sufficiently?”  But more importantly this is stress on perfection applied to the wrong public. (see HCO PL 9 Dec 71 (Revised 22 Feb 75) “What? No Auditors?” & Class VIII materials and data)

      2.  The Blind Have Been Leading the Blind
– The handling then, was to create drills that tell a coach exactly how to properly coach another auditor even if he himself has technical deficiencies, thus handling the aspect of an untrained coach (“blind”) coaching an untrained student (“blind”).
     
Question: “Why would the coach have been blind?”  Considering that this may be the wrong question. HCO PL 9 Dec 71 (Revised 22 Feb 75) “What? No Auditors?” indeed does account for various. L. Ron Hubbard has long since made quite clear that the technology and its methods were workable. The statement of The Blind Have Been Leading the Blind may also work as a generalization and an invalidation of the things which have been done right and of those persons who have been doing them. It invalidates the past production of orgs, staff, publics and L. Ron Hubbard since 1950. It may seem that this statement works as a false indication.

      3.  Lack of Adequate and Established Passing Standards Resulting in Permissive Supervision Due to Confusing “Fast Flow” with the Subject of Drilling
– The handling is to create an exact passing standard all supervisors can adhere to, and that passing standard is perfection. Instead of letting students go through meter drills until they “have a win”, we require they be perfect. To ensure such, we define what “perfect” means as regards such drills.
     
Question: “Why did the supervisor confuse Fast Flow with the subject of drilling?”  Again this may be a wrong assumption and thus again the wrong question may have been asked. The entire point focuses on a generality. Which supervisor in which org? It is not something that I have ever observed happening, nor have I heard from any other person that would have observed this happening. There is the likely possibility that this is an invented datum or that a single specific instance is taken for the whole.
Now, what about this Supervisor having erred? One could proceed to find the why on that supervisor! So why wasn't this person corrected on the spot and the problem dealt with and terminated there and then?

 

Vocabulary:

     ..R, ..RA, ..RB (etc) or #R, #RA (etc):
For example: ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70R’ & ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70RA, etc. The given date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R, RA indication may also follow after an issue-number. The R stands for ‘Revision’ and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first published. If it is revised a 2nd time it is indicated as RA, a 3rd time RB, then RC, and so on.
     audit, auditing, auditor:
The application of Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor (listener). The goal of the auditor is to make the receiver of the auditing look at incidents and reduce the mental charge which may lay upon them. The auditor may not evaluate and has to adhere to the Auditor's code.
     BTB:
Board Technical Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Bulletins written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for Technical Bulletins and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as tech. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
  This issue-type was established in January 1974. In December 1974 a project was started to cancel HCO PL's not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BTB's. By 1980 all BTB's had been revoked.
     C/S:
Case/Supervisor’.  1. That person in a Scientology Church who gives instructions regarding, and supervises the auditing of preclears. The abbreviation C/S can refer to the Case Supervisor or to the written instructions of a case supervisor depending on context. (BTB 12 Apr 72R)  2. The C/S is the case supervisor. He has to be an accomplished and properly certified auditor and a person trained additionally to supervise cases. The C/S is the auditor's “handler.” He tells the auditor what to do, corrects his tech, keeps the lines straight and keeps the auditor calm and willing and winning. The C/S is the pc's case director. His actions are done for the pc. (Dianetics Today, Bk. 3, p. 545)
     cramming:
A section in the Qualifications Division where a student is given high pressure instruction at his own cost after being found slow in study or when failing his exams. The cramming section teaches students what they have missed. This includes trained auditors who wish to be brought up-to-date on current technical developments.
     floating needle (F/N):
The idle uninfluenced movement of the needle on the dial (of an E-meter) without any patterns or reactions in it. It can be as small as one inch or as large as dial wide. It does not fall or drop to the right of the dial. It moves to the left at the same speed as it moves to the right. It is observed on a Mark V E-meter calibrated with the TA (Tone Arm) between 2.0 and 3.0 with GIs (Good Indicators) in on the pc. It can occur after a cognition, blowdown of the TA (Tone Arm) or just moves into floating. The pc may or may not voice the cognition. (HCOB 7 May 69 V)
     F/N:
floating needle’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     HCO (Division):
Hubbard Communications Office’. It's in charge of the org boards, personnel, hatting and communication lines. HCO builds, holds, maintains, mans and controls the organization. It's in charge of inspection and it's in charge of ethics. Has the say on all copyrights and trademarks, rights of materials and the issuance of publications.
     HCOB:
Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on white paper. Written by LRH only , but only so starting from January 1974. These are the technical issue line. All data for auditing and courses is contained in HCOBs. For more information go here (separate window).
    HCO PL:
Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on white paper. Written by LRH only, but only so starting from January 1974. These are the organizational and administrative issue line. For more information go here (separate window).
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     Method 2 Word Clearing:
By meter in classroom. The earlier passage is read by the student while on a meter and the misnunderstood word is found. Then it is fully defined by dictionairy. The word is then used several times in sentences of the student's own verbal composing. The misunderstood area is then reread until understood. (HCOB 24 Jun 71) Abbr. M2.
     misunderstood(s):
Refers to a word or words that have not been properly understood, and therefore one is unable to apply or duplicate.
     ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976):
This is within the Scientology organization commonly referred to as simply ‘Admin Dictionary’. Presently used editions of this book are identical to this first edition.
     org(s):
Short for ‘organization(s)’.
     pc folder:
preclear folder’. The preclear is the person receiving Dianetics or Scientology processing. The folder contains all information relating to the processing the person is receiving.
    P/L or PL:
‘HCO PL’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     PTS, PTSness:
potential trouble source’.  1. Somebody who is connected with an SP (suppressive person) who is invalidating him, his beingness, his processing, his life. (SH Spec 63, 6506C08)  2. He's here, he's way up today and he's way down tomorrow. (Establishment Officer Lecture 3, 7203C02 SO I)  3. The mechanism of PTS is environmental menace that keeps something continually keyed in. This can be a constant recurring somatic or continual, recurring pressure or a mass. (HCOB 5 Dec 68)
     Pubs, Pubs Org:
Publications Org(anization)’. The basic function of a Publications Org or department is to advertise and sell books to the public and CF (Central Files) in order to drive business in on the org and to provide tapes, texts and materials to orgs so that they can deliver. (HCO PL 28 May 72)
     Qual (Div):
Qualifications Division’. 1. It could be called the correction division or the adjustment division. But qualifications would also serve. (SH Spec 77, 6608C23)  2. The Qual Division monitors not only technical quality and honesty but the administrative quality and honesty of the entire organization. HCO establishes the org, but Qual makes it run. (BPL 22 Nov 71R)  3. The division where the student is examined and where he may receive cramming or special assistance and where he is awarded completions and certificates and where his qualifications as attained on courses or in auditing are made a permanent record. (HCOB 19 Jun 71 III)
     Qual Library:
Qualifications Library’. Located in Division 5 (Qualifications Division), Department 14 (Dept. of Correction).  1. There is a Qual Librarian, whose duties are essentially those of a librarian, collecting up the materials, logging and storing them safely, making up cross reference files so that the material can be easily located. (BPL 21 Jan 73R, Use the Library to Restore Lost Technology)  2. Now that takes an interesting librarian because he's the Technical Information Center. (7109C05 SO, A Talk on a Basic Qual)  3. Qual is in the business of finding and restoring lost tech. (BPL 22 Nov 71R, Qual Org Officer/Esto)
     Rundown:
A series of steps which are auditing actions and processes designed to handle a specific aspect of a case and which have a known end phenomena. Example: Introspection Rundown. (LRH Def. Notes)  As a rule this mostly works as a corrective action and not as a mandatory part of the Bridge.
     tone arm (TA):
1. Tone arm refers to the tone arm or its motion. (HCOB 13 Apr 64)  2. Tone arm action. A technical term for a quantitative measure of case gain in the Scientology processing of a preclear for a given unit of time. (Introduction to Scientology Ethics, p. 38)  3. The measure of accumulation of charge. (Class VIII No. 6)  4. A measure of the amount of encysted force which is leaving the case. (SH Spec 291, 6308C06)
     Training Routine (TR):
Training regimen or routine. Often referred to as a training drill. TRs are a precise training action putting a student through laid out practical steps gradient by gradient, to teach a student to apply with certainty what he has learned. In particular these are for training of an auditor in regards to communication. The ones presently in use are OT TR 0, TR 0 confronting, TR 0 bullbait, TR 1, 2, 2½, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 100, 100-A, 101, 102, 103 & 104. (for more data see ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ & HCOB 17 Jul 69RB)


Go to top of this page


Advertisement