Thank you. Thank you.
How are you tonight?
Audience: Fine!
I want to compliment you on almost everyone having survived into and including the fourth week of the 18th ACC. And this was not looked for. I am very surprised. Very surprised.
Male voice: Fire the Instructors.
You're not going to have to fire the Instructors on the 18th ACC. They're expended probably at the end of the unit.
Okay. This is the sixteenth lecture of the 18th ACC, Aug. 5, 1957. AD 7.
Male voice: Amen.
We are covering here — going to cover here intelligence. IQ, the handling of.
Male voice: Good.
This past week has been an eventful one in research. It has culminated a four-year search for the factors which lay behind what is called IQ or intelligence quotient.
We have been taking pc tests here for many years. And these tests were used mainly to establish change. We care nothing about the significance of a test. We do care about the fact that these tests mirror change.
Now, someone can say that a test taken twice will of course get a better answer than one taken once. I don't know why this is true since everybody in the mest universe is on "it mustn't happen again." You automatically figure that a test taken twice would get a worse grade the second time. That's beside the point.
They have tests which have different questions, and they call the B section and the A section and so forth. And you give two different tests, really, which are supposed to give identical results.
Now, I have been waiting for people who did this testing originally and so forth to come up and say, "Well, they don't — these tests that you're doing, you can throw the result in any direction that you want to." And I've just been waiting with this one right behind the gun, see. I've been waiting with this one in a holster, tied down low. "You mean your tests are no damn good? Huh-huh!"
But we have given a considerable amount of testing to a considerable number of people. And we do find that a test will hold constant on a given person in the absence of processing.
If a person is not processed, the variability in the profile and variability in the IQ is very slight. Over a period of years this is true.
Somebody who is getting no results whatsoever from any treatment or processing will register the same, test after test after test, which is quite unusual.
Now therefore, our failures have been of some benefit, and naturally there have been failures since experimental processes have been run. And the process was not intended to do anything but to find out what the process would do. And those processes that don't do anything of course didn't do anything and you got the same test back again on the A or B type.
Quite interesting, the whole subject of testing. Particularly interesting since it is a very old subject. It is not a subject developed in modern times. Testing is so aged, so ancient that it probably has longer hair than the long-hairs. It's — one of the first examples of testing that we find is in the early Chaldean times. Testing of all kinds and sorts and descriptions as to honesty, intent, reliability, ability and so forth have been with man almost as long as man has been around. It is not a new subject at all.
In modern times these tests have been reduced to writing. I'll give you a guilt test I heard about from the eighteenth century down in Georgia. It's pronounced "Jawjia." This test, throughout its use, was always very successful. It was a guilt test; and somebody had stolen something, they would have all the Negroes on the plantation line up and they would put a rooster underneath a big black kettle. And he was a witch rooster or something of the sort, you know, and they'd say, "Now, the man who stole it — the man who stole it, when he touches the black kettle will make the rooster crow."
And all the line of Negroes on the plantation would go by the kettle, you know? And then the overseer would merely have to go by and look at their hands, and the Negro who didn't have any soot on his hands was of course guilty.
There have been tests by fire even earlier than that. All you had to do to prove yourself innocent was to put your hand in the flame.
All tests, however, have had an end goal, and they are, of modern times, more or less covert. They're as covert as this rooster under the black kettle. You're supposed to answer a certain number of questions and as you answer them you get a certain grade. If you answer more questions in a given period of time, why, you're supposed to be better off than fewer questions in a given period of time. This is a very interestingly complex subject, modern testing, for this reason only, is: it was originally devised in the total belief that man could not be changed.
From year to year people would get changes of one kind or another from childhood on, which would demonstrate the year IQ, you might say.
And it could be higher and lower than other year IQs. They thought that people advanced in IQ because of age and so forth, and yet they maintained at the same time that IQ or intelligence quotient could not change, would never change, and could not be influenced by any particular factor.
I am rather astounded to discover that when a person is happy and takes the test and when the same person is unhappy and takes the test, he gets practically the same curve and practically the same IQ. Quite interesting.
He can get up with a horrible hangover and he will get only slightly less. Not a significant amount less than when he got up after a good 48-hour, round-the-clock sleep. It is quite amazing. That is what is peculiar about testing, is it does have a constancy.
It was this constancy in testing and an inability to understand the mind prior to 1950 which made people say that it was not possible to change man and he could not change. His IQ couldn't change. If he — a stupid man was a stupid man, a bright man was a bright man and that was it. And of course all men were stupid and there were no bright men except the testers, so this sort of made it unanimous.
Well anyway, we come down now to definitions. The history of testing is fascinating, but what's more fascinating is that anyone would have come along and have said, "Now look, there is such a thing as personality, and this is distinct and independent of intelligence. Intelligence is one thing, personality is another thing. And people actually had this idea, and although they had dozens of other categories which are less factual, these two categories are distinctly different.
A person — intelligence is not his personality. And so tests exist to measure personality, and tests exist to measure intelligence.
Now, this is one of the easier things to observe. One of the ways one would observe this, quite elementary, he would take three or four fellows who had more or less an equal personability. These people were all bond salesmen, they were more or less charming and hail fellows or whatever bond salesmen have to be, and they would test these fellows and they'd find their personalities were the same, but their IQs were different.
Then they'd find several people of the same IQ and they would find that they had different personalities one from another.
This could not have failed to be observed. It's one of the more elementary things.
Now, imagine our original interest in Phoenix, Arizona, when we were really going all out on testing — very early times we were in Phoenix — to discover that we process somebody with Scientology, and we gave him before that a personality test and IQ test. And after we had processed him we'd give him another personality, another IQ test, and we were not so amazed that change had taken place. We'd known that ever since 1950 when the first testing was done. But we were amazed that these things — for a while it sort of looked like they went either this way or that way. In other words, we either changed their personality or we changed their intelligence. Very often, in a very successful case, we changed both. Improved both. But these factors were changing independent of each other.
Well, this created a mystery, and I'm a sucker for mysteries. And this mystery invited my eye, and I gazed upon it with some astonishment because I said, "Why is it that we run an intensive on Joe and change his IQ, and run an intensive on Bill and change his personality but not his IQ?" Very mysterious.
In view of the fact that all of our processes were to a large degree mixed — they'd include Havingness and they'd include 8-C and they'd include thinkingness processes and significances and so forth — in view of the fact that auditors were different from one auditor to another, we had a sufficient number of factors in each one of these test representations to make it impossible to sort out which was which. What process or attitude changed IQ? What process or attitude changed personality? It's just bthaaah.
And every time I'd spread a lot of these tests out and start to go over them statistically in any way, and I'd try to do it by symbolic logic and by woman's intuition and other mathematics and I could not certainly isolate this. As — a time or two actually asked people to just process one sort of process. And this would radically alter. In other words, we'd process a certain type of process on one preclear and change his personality; another — same type process on another preclear and change his IQ.
Well, in view of a brash statement I made the other day to the government of the United States (that's a place down here at — well, it exists, I suppose) anyway, I wrote a letter and it got somewhere, I think. And in this letter I was offering to change the IQ of defense scientists by a lot of points per scientist. And — this was part of the rendition, anyway. But — there's been a lot of chatter back and forth about this project's going on. Anyway, I stuck my neck out and I said, well, we could change the IQ of scientists anywhere from 15 to 75 points. Of course — and could absolutely count on changing them 10 or 15 points. Well, we could. Our averages show that. But, I don't know why — it may be that my left medulla oblongata does not know what my right orbit is doing — but I started out an entirely different project with the HGC auditors last week and wound up with the answer to this thing I'm talking about. With no intention of winding up with the answer at all — it's one of those things. Accidentals.
Now, what happened was this. We wanted a process that we could write up in a book and send to ministers so that they could counsel easily and well. Ministers of any denomination. And they, in counseling this way, would get a certain release and result amongst the congregation since the minister is doing a tremendous amount of personal counseling anyway. And if he could just sit down and according to these rules, as he would read them (which would be rather sloppily), get some sort of a result, we'd be very happy. And we were simply trying to tailor up the question. What was the best question on this one process? That was all we were trying to do.
And we call this Process July. Now, we knew one thing about Process July, and that was that it was slanted in the direction of getting people to unburden their souls. That was all it was. That was the only direction it was slanted. We wanted to get the overt act-motivator sequence off the case. Smart, huh? So we'd have the minister sit there and write down the names and — of everybody that the person knew. We'd hardly dignify this person by saying "preclear." Probably a lot of these cases it'd be pre-butchery. But he'd write down all the names of the people he knew, endlessly, you see? And then pick out the most likely candidates and then just ask this one question about each one of those until we got this person straightened out and cleaned up.
Now, there's a communication process which would put these people into better communication. The communication process would be "something you could do or say to so-and-so." We'd ask that as sort of a Straightwire or present time basis. "Tell me something you could do or say to (valence)." You know, Grandpa or somebody like that. That was about all this process was going to consist of, but we did know this: that an overt act-motivator sequence is a reach-withdraw situation. See, I knew that. All right.
Therefore, we had to test "withhold." Obviously we had this withhold thing. Now, earlier processes already had given us this one. It's Recall a Secret, and that's from two years ago right here in Washington. "Recall a secret." And "Recall a secret. Recall another secret. Recall another secret." But don't get that process too confused with this process because they're not the same process at all. We just wanted the fellow to open up and talk to the auditor when we were recalling secrets. And if we did anything with Recall a Secret, it was totally by accident, we learn here on "withhold."
All right. So the first auditing question which was asked in this particular project, written here, "Think of something you could withhold from." Now, it was — all we did was take the preclears . . . And we knew this would do them a lot of good and that we were not doing anything — as a matter of fact, the results are — well, they got tremendously good results. But we just took a list of people and then started down this list. We found that was too arduous right from scratch.
But we asked them then this auditing question, "Something you could withhold from." And then we turned around and ran "Recall something you've said or done to (that valence)." Made it a Recall Process, and "Invent something you could say or do to," and ran those processes. In other words, make an inventiveness one, or "Think of something you could say or do to."
Now, one of the discoveries that led to this — it might fascinate you — and that is that divulgence and confession, we'd already learned, had nothing to do with raising anybody's IQ or improving his case. It wasn't the fact that he confessed it. It wasn't the fact that he divulged it. It was the fact that he'd erased it. See? I mean, big difference. Big difference.
For instance, there's an organization over in some foreign country — I've forgotten what it is — and they have little boxes, and they put a man in a box and members of the congregation come up and whisper something through the curtains of the box and they think that this is the stuff, you know? Now actually, they must have cut their therapy down because their early record demonstrates that they did a great deal for people, and their later records don't demonstrate they're doing very much for people.
As a matter of fact, they lost one of their leaders recently. He also wore glasses. They couldn't possibly be producing too much in the way of result with this. And I learned some time ago that to confess something or to divulge it in some fashion had nothing to do with psychotherapy. But this was borne out in this Process July, like mad. Because you understand, the auditor was not saying, "Tell me something you could withhold from Grandpa." He was saying, "Think of something you could withhold from Grandpa." You got the idea? And the auditor would just sit there and acknowledge it and the pc would think of something else he could withhold from Grandpa and the auditor would acknowledge that. You got the idea.
All right. We started in on this on the "withhold" side of it for a couple of days, and then we went over to the "do or say something" and we varied that question around for a couple of days, and then came back to "Think of something you could withhold from (valence)."
And when we got back to that, why, we knew we were in the chips on that question. That was the question that was producing the results. "Think of something you could do or say." "Think of something you could do or say" might unburden it, might rehabilitate something and very possibly (yet to be discovered) may have some workability when crossed over with this withhold question.
But the truth of the matter is, as one of the HGC auditors pointed out, this withhold is a games condition on communication and is a partner to this process: "Mock up somebody and deny him communication." Now, that's a games condition process, don't you see?
And people who are in a games condition — obsessive games condition, got to play a game with everybody they meet and don't even know it — on the subject of communication, are naturally going to be obsessively withholding. Well, you'd think that this was the thing we were trying to break. But the entire framework of research here, aimed as it was originally in giving ministers a nice little process, wound up with these rather astonishing results. This was run on five preclears. One of these preclears is incomplete. Actually, two of them were considered incomplete but one of them particularly was incomplete because we walked right up to him in the case, trod all over his toes and were all set to break his case, and there was the end of the intensive. So some more work had to be done on that by another auditor.
So his results here are invalid. We did, however, walk right up to the point where he became terribly agitated about answering the question, and then it couldn't be flattened because the twenty-five hours were up. That test, therefore, is invalid. Another test at the end of this week will complete this one. In other words, this was a more-hours case.
But let us take the remaining four on which this was run, and let us read, completely aside from the personality changes (which, by the way, were minimal — minimal APA changes; they're very, very small — they're all beneficial but very tiny) read these IQs. The original here, well, we'll just read the final last week on which this was run — 159 to 184. This is a lady so old that everybody knew that everybody's brains atrophied, and I imagine their brains don't — do atrophy, but this has nothing to do with a thetan. And her IQ went from 84 to 105.
Male voice: Wow.
Now, this is an impossible jump of IQ for this age which is — I don't know which one this is. One of these girls is 50-some which is not very old, but the other one is about 70-odd years. And they're not supposed to change at that level. Eighty-four to 105 running that process that I've just described to you.
Here we have the other case, very — this person very well advanced in years — 109 to 133. The 84 to 105 is a startling one though because the 70s and 80s are the impossible shifters. We've shifted them that way before, but we seldom with — suddenly say, as we could now, well, we're going to change this person. We change him, change his IQ.
All right, now we have this one, and this is 121 to 143.
And this one, as we say, is invalid. The person became awfully stupid the moment that he ran right straight in. As a matter of fact, dropped his IQ practically out the bottom — 134 to 118. Now, he had, as you'll read here on the end of this intensive, the last of the auditor's report, "Think of something you might withhold from valence (blank)." And that was run for an hour. And the auditor says, "No big change, occasional comm lags; pc not facing problem of (blank), and having told him (blank), process above pc's reality level unless our case diagnosis inaccurate. Mentioned more control mechanisms he uses on (blank). Protested some about running this after he had been on it for a while." This was disclosing a present time overt act on the part of this person.
Now, the auditor adds here — I'm not sure why — "I did not want to make this pc an opponent." Oh, he has a good game going with auditors as opponents and no effect. This is a terrific no-effect pc. All right. We'll see that one at the end of this week. That was not flat, so it couldn't be included in the series. But look at those terrific gains on IQ.
Well, we figure it this way. This theory behind it seems to be this. The individual gets his mind so involved with the problems of some game with some valence or some person, you see? He's doing this and he's doing that and he gets his mind so involved and his computers are all tied up on that particular subject, that when you restore self-determinism on this particular level, you free an individual's ability to think. Got that?
An obsessive games condition is to withhold communication from somebody. Now, when we take that off automatic and put it under the control of the pc so that he is doing it and he can do it, then all of the involved mechanisms start working out. Well, that isn't all we discovered about this particular line.
We found out that psychotherapy has never worked, couldn't work, and the basic theory of psychotherapy is something somebody ought to be shot for. And I say that all the time just because I want a good game going. That's the only reason, of course. I don't feel anything for my fellow man or anything like that. I raise the devil with the brain surgeons and so forth simply because I just need something to raise the devil with. Actually, it doesn't matter. Like hell.
Anyway, found out these characters were total frauds. And had never — I'd had some evidence that this was the case and it seemed to me this was the case, that Freudian analysis and other things was the case. But I know now why you've never seen a set of figures on Freudian analysis. Why you've never seen a before or after IQ on a Freudian analysis. And that would be the first thing that Freudian analysis would have tried and would have produced if they thought they were doing anything to anybody. Did it do anything for anybody's IQ? And I'll tell you why they never released a set of figures. Because it must depress the IQ out through the bottom. They must be able to take somebody with an IQ of about 150 and shove it down to about 70 in the course of a couple of years of psychoanalysis.
Now, I have many cases of record on this. I keep neat little files on the subject in case someday I find that somebody's got a knife in my back and I think that it ought to be in his back. Knife transfers. And I look through the little files, and there are a lot of supportive evidence on this.
For instance, an advertising executive in New York City who was very, very successful, one of the most brilliant men in his firm, was yet a little quaaked in the traahk, you know? He was wound up the wrong way. He'd take swigs out of his inkwell at regular intervals, you know? That sort of thing. Always marrying somebody else's wife on weekends, couldn't get to work on Monday because he was in the divorce court. Anyway, this guy was a brilliant man. Very brilliant.
And after some years of psychoanalysis, during which he took a total vacation from his job, he was returned to his firm as the janitor. No longer able to do any advertising executive work. Furthermore, there was no evidence that his psychosis had been cured. But it certainly couldn't manifest, because that required some brilliance.
Now, I didn't understand what had happened to this man, but the Freudian analyst believes and teaches this: that individuals who are brilliant must be neurotic. You got that?
Audience: Yeah.
Well, here we've got them in a box! Because it must be that every time they run Freudian analysis on somebody they decrease his IQ out through the bottom. Well, how fascinating! Because we find it isn't the case at all. What we did in this particular line is we moved those people who were below the line severely and so forth, up away from it and up above the line on personality. In other words, we took care of, to some degree, some of these worst incidents here.
For instance, we had a minus 55, depressed and unhappy, which was about the same, maybe, as this advertising executive in New York. And that changed, on this process only, to 79 plus, happy. We ran nothing but this process. And this person's IQ, understand, went from 121 to 143. In other words, we made him more sane and brighter at the same time, which gives us the clue on Freudian analysis. They have never at any time dared release an IQ pattern taken before or after an analysis because I'll guarantee you that it has always dropped. Why? Because they're on the wrong kick.
Now, get this. This is the only thing that makes this work, and this is the only thing that makes it exciting news. The ability to withhold a communication is an ability which is restored by auditing. And it is the ability to withhold a communication which advances IQ and makes a person feel better, not the ability to divulge it.
Now, that's a switch, isn't it? This is wild. You've been told all your lives that all you had to do was go to somebody and confess! If you just would confess to your mother and father that you did those dirty, nasty, little things, you'd feel so much better. And that is nothing but a control operation from beginning to end and isn't true.
You probably felt better to the end of getting your pants tanned. This is an enforced communication. And as an enforced communication, would break through a games condition in which a person found himself and would demand that he communicate with the enemy. And would depress him accordingly. And obviously it isn't true that divulging it or confessing it did anything for anybody because the only improvement he got would be if he regained the ability to withhold that information without being upset about withholding it.
All right. So you took your old man's car. That's how it got that wobbly wheel. And you put it back in the garage just as nice . . . And he came out the next day and he looked at that wobbly wheel, and he says, "What — what — what — I wonder how that happened!" And you stood there innocently and said nothing at all. But you felt guilt. And at length you kind of felt like you went out of communication with him when these things got too many.
And psychotherapy's answer to this whole problem was all you had to do was throw yourself upon the breast of truth and you were all set. And that wouldn't have done a thing for you. Not a single thing for you.
What the bent wheel did was overcome your ability to withhold communication by making you feel you ought to communicate. And so interrupted your self-determinism on the subject of communication.
Now, we have tested and we have in our testing files many, many inten-sives run on this one: "Mock up your father and say something to him." You remember that old process? It didn't do any great shakes for pcs. "Think of something you could withhold from Father," however, would have cracked it to smithereens. The process is flat when the ability to withhold is regained. The ability to withhold on a self-determined basis is regained, the process is flat.
Now, this is the reach and withdraw mechanism. You all know this little oddity about reach and withdraw. Must reach-can't reach, must withdraw-can't withdraw are two pairs which create the sensation of insanity. You can take a preclear and just have him get the idea that he must reach the wall, that he can't reach the wall, and if you can get him to hold that sensation, he will feel what insanity is. That's dreams: you must run away from the bogeyman that's chasing you through the treacle. And he is coming at a mad, express-train speed. And there you are, stuck. That's a nightmare, you see? You must withdraw, can't withdraw.
The glee of insanity is only composed of this. People in the asylum are only stuck in this, that they must withdraw, can't withdraw or must reach, can't reach. I imagine electric shock turns on more psychoses than are in the heads of psychiatrists. And that is some fantastic amount. And that would be on this basis: you take somebody who must get away from the electric shock machine and you make him approach the electric shock machine, and you've done it. You've laid in another insanity ridge, you got it? And you lay in enough of those, boy, do you stay solvent and boy, can you take dough away from the government and boy, can you maintain things in big style. Yeah. We're not much crazy.
And then people can come around, you know, and they can say "Well, one out of every fifteen Americans is crazy." I could have told them that. Fifteen out of fifteen. Well, that's true. It must be the diagnosis of it if they haven't shot psychiatrists yet — they're all nuts.
Now let's get back on this because this is up to my favorite rant. My very, very favorite rant is just this: that psychotherapy was a swindle. That it didn't intend to make anybody better. That was not its goal. And all of these psychotherapies are aimed at getting somebody to outflow. And what do we find here? We find that intelligence increases and neurotic personality traits better if we run "withhold communication from (valences)." What a fantastic reversal.
We have just found out somebody, and we have found them out a long way from base. Their idea was to get somebody to sit down and talk for two years, see? Tsk. No. Now, you see what background this is, why this is upsetting.
Actually, to some degree, we have always given credence and the benefit of the doubt. We — I have never said to myself, "All past researchers in the field of the mind have been absolutely stupid." I couldn't have said such a thing. It would have been a completely insane statement because it couldn't possibly have been true.
As a matter of fact, look at the dedication of Science of Survival, things like this. But as years go on and I find out more and more things like this, I begin to wonder why I haven't said so. Because it's actually impeded our work tremendously.
The whole concept that the pattern of the child is the perfect pattern on which adult behavior is formed, you see, and it's the natural, normal development of the child which gives us our pattern for barbaric behavior. And that's the basic standard of human behavior is the barbaric pattern of behavior as a child. Therefore we have to have jails. It follows, doesn't it? See how well that follows?
We say, well, we have to improve people beyond children because, you see, they would all be like children, and children are very lawless. And if you really did do anything for people, if you let people look into the mind, why, of course they'd all become as lawless as children and we'd have to put them all in jail.
And you still say this is no control operation? I think it's a knowing control operation. I don't think I could be around — if I were as stupid as a — somebody down here at GW in the psychology department — I don't think I could be around their rat mazes more than two or three weeks without finding there was some curve in it. See, it would have been something. Any one of you, walking back and forth and inspecting this sort of thing, would sooner or later have come to realize that something like this was going on.
Now, the idea of confession is very, very old. It's as old as witch doctors. Don't let any church claim it as a monopoly because it's not. It's one of the oldest witch doctor tricks there is: confession. If you could just confess it to somebody, you'd be all right. Listen: that's an operation. The answer to it is, if you could just withhold information from somebody voluntarily, you would be all right. See, it's the exact opposite side of the vector.
Now, let's get factual, huh? Let's get off of my favorite hobbyhorses here and get some usable processing information since this week we're covering processes.
We found this to be the case: that those people from whom one felt he could hold nothing were the aberrative valences on the case. So we have a new definition for aberrative valence: a person from whom the preclear could have withheld nothing. Most aberrative valence on the case. Got that?
And as you run it, you'll see — you'll say "Think of something now that you could withhold from Aunt Grace."
And the pc will say, "Well, unreality, unreality, unreality. Unreality, unreality, unreality. Gee, it seems like I could just — I could withhold a dollar in my billfold or — or mmmmmmm, an old broken tooth or a pile of dirt or a book or something from Aunt Grace, but I don't seem to be able to withhold anything from Aunt Grace at all."
You got your quarry. Tallyho.
Now, here's a test of this. You ask a criminal, "What could you withhold from jail?" He'll do the same thing.
"Unreality, unreality, nothing. Nothing. Jail?"
And just the mention of the thing, he will see sort of the facsimiles and so forth and pictures of himself and so on go sweeping toward some spot he considers the jail. He is unable to withhold anything from jail.
So what are we looking at here, kiddies? We're looking at the basic anatomy of the trap and the basic process by which one would run a trap.
And boy, if you don't think that's valuable, you ain't been in no traps lately.
In other words, you could be sitting in the middle of the trap and just dream it up for a while and say, "How did I get in here? I don't know." The only way anybody could keep you in a trap would — give you the idea that you had to surrender to the trap. Ha! That won't work. All you'd have to do is run this kind of a Straightwire process. Not Straightwire, but just thinkingness process. You could run a Straightwire process on this, too.
"Let's see. What could I withhold from this trap?" And finally get one with complete certainty. Just one, no matter how small and crummy and insignificant. You'll be amazed how long it takes to get them when you really strike an aberrative valence or a trap that's really — you really think is a trap.
"What could I withhold from?" You think of another one.
"What could I withhold from this trap?" Another one.
"What could I withhold from this trap?" By that time you'd start to yo-yo in and out of the trap. Don't give it up because it takes quite a few more to free you. Got it?
If you get outside of the trap and find yourself too avidly playing the game of, "Boy, that was a tight squeak" (that's quite a game, you know), why, just find something else that you could withhold from the trap and that would be that. Got it?
Now, what do you do about the other side of it? Takes care of itself. I don't know how a thetan can keep from communicating with everything unless he feels he should withhold everything from everything.
Now, what are you trying to do? Are you trying to erase a lot of things? No. No, no. Get off of that. It is the regaining of the ability to withhold. So on some gradient scale, you lead the fellow up. The process is flat when he has regained his ability to withhold something from Papa. Something from Mama. Something from school. Something from — I don't know, maybe he was a drill press operator — something from a drill press. You got the idea? He was a painter — something from a canvas. Got it?
He could, with certainty, selectively withhold things from canvas or aberrative valences, you've got it licked. You don't have to go the other way at all. Why? Because an individual has been in a games condition with the canvas or the typewriter or the drill press or the valence. And he's been in a games condition that absorbed all of his ideas and thinkingness and everything else. And they're all stuck and bunched up on the track. But he's trying to think, "How can I communicate? How can I communicate?"
Let's take a boxer. We had a boxer in our midst here and I asked him to think this question over. And he gave me a report on it today, and he says, "Uuuuh, that's quite a question! What could you withhold from another boxer?"
He said it's easy to withhold those things which a person would normally have withheld from him in training. "But the other things," he said, "I don't know." What would the other things be? A blow!
All right. So the individual's been in some kind of a high games condition requiring a lot of effort such as boxing, you would find the same rules applying. Overt act-motivator sequence is what you're studying now, folks. After all these years, man and boy, we've been looking at this overt act-motivator sequence and ways of wrapping it up, and we saw them — suddenly look at it. Because the individual who cannot withhold, cannot communicate, since communication is composed of selective withholding.
Now, it's not a break-communication process because it is running out things. Now, there are many other fascinating factors involved in this particular process, but none of them are — should be bypassed. I should tip my hat to each one of the side effects here. And so I will.
You've got this kind of an activity, then. You have individuals in a game condition, with their highest common denominator of a games condition. And that action is communicate, and they are trying to withhold communication from their opponents. Wherever they have considered an opponent to exist, they have withheld communication from the opponent.
Now, having decided to withhold communication from the opponent, they now decide to communicate with the opponent because they have to. And you get a denial of self, which is of course your basic aberrative pattern. Basis of all aberration is the denial of self. You say it is black and then tomorrow you are forced to say that it is white. This is quite aberrative.
All right. We take this circumstance, we look over the picture and we discover that the individual has been made to break his own postulate. "I am withholding it," he said, because he considered this person an opponent, and then he said, "Now I have to talk. My crimes are so great. My misery is so tremendous, the harm I have done is so sweepingly horrible." People love to set themselves up as God, you know, with the idea that they caused the whole flood. It's really wonderful. I mean, the conceit with which some people will take upon themselves authorship of consequences far beyond their power to create.
Yes, yes, I imagine some ex-thetan of a major general be sitting up in cloud ninety-nine after the next atomic war or something like that saying, "Well, it serves me right. I caused it all." Brother, he never had brains enough to cause all that. He never had brains enough.
Now, the ability to withhold a communication, then, is an ability. And when one starts withholding automatically or as a pattern, or when the withholding, more importantly, is broken down by the feeling that one must confess, divulge or communicate, one loses, then, out, and closes valences and takes on the other valence. So there are many criminals walking around who are nothing but ambulant jails.
When you can no longer withhold from a valence, you become it. And we have the basic mechanism of valence closure. Because what is the one thing that you don't withhold from something you have become? Yourself.
So you have to go up a gradient scale of withholding in order to stay apart or out of a trap or out of a valence. Lead-pipe cinch. So all you would do is run a process of this type.
Now, how would you run this process? One, you would take an inventory of valences. And if I were doing it, I would take an inventory of valences and professions and habitats. A habitat is a place where a preclear has lived and couldn't pay the rent. In other words, I would find the old homestead, the old apartment house in Harlem, the hole in the hill in California. Childhood home, in other words. Got that? I'd take a list of these familiar places. Then I would take the professional list, and I'd certainly have this valence list. You got it?
Now, there are numbers of tricks by which one can isolate these without asking the direct question. And he can isolate these on the basis of comm lag, the fact that he didn't mention them at all. In five of these people, the two — in two of the cases out of five, the most aberrative people or valences on the case were never mentioned by the preclear but were dug up by the auditor on an oblique questioning angle. In other words, they were completely out of sight. They were never mentioned. The two, see? Two out of five, in other words. That's an awfully heavy percentage. It means you never would have gotten the aberrative person on the case.
And I would then take the most likely suspects, totally convinced that other suspects were probably much more likely and would turn up. And then I would run it in this wise. I would establish a session with thoroughness. And with questioning I would find out if there was a present time valence with which the person was very deeply involved which was a horrible problem to him, and I would just run that as a problem of comparable magnitude and get it out of the road. And then put it down very carefully in my notes to knock hell out of it with a process. Got it?
I'd move into session and I would sandwich valences in this fashion: I would take some valence that was easy to run and get him used to the idea of withholding communication.
My auditing question would be "Think of something you might withhold from (blank)." "Think of something" — not "Tell me something," not "Recall something." It'd be "Think of something you might withhold from (blank)." And he'll think. And when he has thunk, why, he tells you so and you say okay and give him an acknowledgment and carry on. You got that?
In other words, you aren't asking him to divulge a thing. But after a while, he's getting a broad smile upon his face and his tone is coming up and he is doing wonderful indeed, and you say, "Are you able to think . . ."
"Oh," he says, "I can think of lots of things."
Now, beware of an automaticity. He might strike a games condition auto-maticity that says, "Oh, I could withhold something from (blank). Yes — very, withhold this stage, this thh, mmmm-mm, ho, vmm, mmmm, thhhm, mmmth, oh, there's just too many things. I just couldn't say all the things I could withhold from (blank)." That's an automaticity. That has to be flattened. Get it finally to where he can withhold rather ordinary and routine things at his own discretion, one at a time. And that is the ability regained. The only thing you're interested in. And he finally decides that he could withhold things from (blank). Shift gears.
Go into Locational Processing. Orient your pc in the environment with Locational: "Notice that wall. Notice the ceiling. Notice the floor," to command his attention. No more. No less. And then turn around and pick the next valence you care to run.
Now, this valence you should consider a little stiffer. And run it until he has regained his ability to withhold things from. Go into Locational again and then pick a little stiffer valence. Got it?
Until you get one that you just know he can't withhold anything from at all. You know by the way he bogs on it, how he never mentioned it, how he told you that it wasn't important. And run that one. And then I would pick up his professional tools. You know, spaceships and other working tools. And I would run those on a similar gradient scale until he could withhold anything from them.
And then I would pick items like the childhood home until he could withhold anything from the childhood home. And you would have this individual just coming out of various stuck spots of his life just pop, pop, pop, pop. Got that?
By that time you've regained enough ability to withhold that he could withhold himself from this universe and there he goes, and you got an OT.
Well anyhow, it's interesting theory. The question is, does it work? Well, it would only work on those preclears whose thinkingness could be controlled. There is no use running a preclear whose thinkingness cannot be controlled. You got that? Don't run him on a thinking process if his thinkingness can't be controlled.
So this tells you that if you were going to do this, the very least you would have to do is probably flatten CCH 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 fairly well with the pc before you cut loose with this, and then use ample quantities of Locational Processing for the remainder of the intensive. And you would find, then, that you had your preclear pretty well straightened out. Lord knows what his IQ would be if you went for broke to this degree.
Once you have regained the ability to withhold from a valence with a preclear, you could also ask him this auditing question: "Something you could do or say to that person." But this would be more in the line of showing him that he now had the ability to speak at will; that he could communicate with the person. That apparently restores itself more or less just if left alone. But he would feel very free to talk to people. Communication level of pcs definitely comes up, as so reported in most of these cases.
Now, what special guard would you use on this? I'll just repeat this again. The person — that is to say, the body of the pc would have to be under the auditor's control. The attention of the pc would have to continue to be under the auditor's control. Hence, the use of Locational between valences.
But the attention, of course, would be brought under control with the first early CCHs. And then I would move forward into these various valences, and if I felt that he was very badly slipping or he was getting no reality on it at all, I would consider that I had given the preclear a great many loses and that the things were not particularly real to the preclear.
I would then coax him into a higher level of reality. I wouldn't let him keep muffing it, keep missing. I wouldn't let him miss once.
Now, there is another way of running this and diagnosing that, and that is with the use of an E-Meter, providing you can use one and providing you would only use it for diagnosis. Of course, an E-Meter could also tell you if the thing is flat, but an E-Meter will never speak up, even if it's got a beeper on it, and tell you that the ability has been regained. And that is what you are looking for. You're looking for a regaining ability.
This runs as fast as you are trying to get to the preclear to regain an ability to withhold. And it runs as slowly as you expect the process to sort of rub out this or that and do a job on it. The process won't do anything unless you have some goal as to where the process is going. And that is to restore to the preclear the ability to withhold. That is completely important. That is then to bring the preclear out of all traps.
Now, quite incidentally, this is evidently IQ. And it changes valences only to the degree that it totally snaps the preclear out of the valences. Why didn't we get large valence changes here? We didn't get large valence changes, evidently, for the reason that nobody ran a valence flat. We were experimenting. We were spending a lot of time on useless characters in the case. We were wasting time like mad. The amount of effective processing done during this research thing was about ten hours out of the twenty-five.
Now, if we had actually decided to find the aberrative valence and polish it off until we could inspect it with white gloves, we undoubtedly would have got a terrific valence shift because in the final analysis all an APA, if bad, is, is the preclear's idea of the personality of the valence in which he is interior -ized. The APA or personality profile is a picture of a valence the preclear has known, much more than a picture of the preclear's idea of an optimum. Do you understand that?
Audience: Mmmm.
So right here while the ACC has been going on, another milestone has been added. I want to thank the HGC auditors who took part in this test and all those who have had part in testing programs because it's finally culminated to where even we know something about it.
Thank you.