How are you doing?

Audience voice: Fine.

Female voice: How are you doing?

Ah, yeah!

Here we are at the last lecture, the twentieth lecture of the 18th ACC, Aug. 9, 19-5-7.

And tonight I have to cover two or three loose-ended points. As you realize, an ACC of this character is organized and run primarily, of course, to raise the training and ability level of the persons in it and secondarily, to learn a lot more about doing it.

Now, one of the reasons we learn a lot more in an ACC is the people on it — in it aren't usually groping for fundamentals and asking foolish questions and so forth and they have some sort of an idea, usually, that a pc's brain is in his head and that's not what we're processing. But we get a tremendous insight into training. And you might say that the training skills of Scientology have advanced entirely through the ACCs where important progress was made, and only occasionally in the Academy. That doesn't mean that Academy training isn't good; it means that Academy training takes off from ACCs. This is usually the case.

Here we have, then, a circumstance of development which is going forward continuously on the subject of training and I was willing to confront the possibility that we would have a tremendous change in training. You see? This was not the case. The training skills which were — and drills which were worked out have held good throughout this ACC. We have seen consistent and marked progress. And it means, then, that the Academy or HCA/HPA organizational training would remain rather constant, as far as its general form is concerned, but considerably improved as to the exact action required of the student.

And I'd like to cover here just a couple of things of considerable importance to us. And one is training. Just some fragments of the things we have learned in this ACC — and then cover PE Courses. I'd like to cover these two things. Now, here we have, in training, a stability. We know where we're going with these processes. We have a set of processes which apply to cases that ordinarily would not comply with auditing commands. In other words, nonverbal processing has been achieved and it was — has been achieved after all these years, actually, by the handling of the body and the attention. Now, you say it's nonverbal in spite of the fact that you are using words. The truth of the matter is, the words don't play nearly as large a part in it as otherwise.

Now, in 1950 if a preclear said, "No, I won't execute the command," we were licked — which limited us only to those people who would execute a spoken auditing command. Wow! There's a high ceiling, isn't it? I mean that we were way up! Now, gradually we've gone south in the type of person we could process and our first steps in this direction actually came about — besides other things, besides trying to get processes the lower-scale cases could do — with the advent of body mimicry. And we had people mimicking what people were doing with the body and this had some efficacy. This, however, wasn't particularly new as far as we were concerned. This had been done by Homer Lane many, many years ago, who was a squirrel, a psychiatric squirrel in England. And he didn't hold with old-line psychotherapy and he, a layman, simply went up to an institution and started working on people the way he thought he might be able to help them. Well now, that was a step in the direction of physical control and then we move up from there to physical contact. And the first time we got into physical contact, we began to be able to handle these lower-scale cases rather easily. Well, from there on it has been an avalanche.

Now, just when did we start doing this with any ferocity? Many of us here and there had done it. But we didn't start to train people to do it until the middle of 1956. And there we were really training people to do it on the basis that it was absolutely necessary for an auditor to know how to do this. It was part of auditing skill. It had arrived! There was no question about it anymore. Now we have moved along and finally developed what we call Tone 40 processes, which didn't depend on anything the preclear said at all. We moved that far out.

Well, the development of actual techniques to fit this processing drill of course is not ended by a long ways. There are many drills, undoubtedly, that could be done on a Tone 40 basis. And I'd be rather — I'd feel rather upset with you if you didn't here and there suddenly think a long blue spark as you're confronting this preclear and say, "Wow! Now, why didn't I think of that before?" And all of a sudden plunge in there and get him to do something he could do and get some very remarkable result, as a result.

Now, if we did that, we have a background of what to do. It would be control of body, then control of attention and finally control of thinkingness. And we could advance across these three levels in that order and win every time. We get a control of body, then we can get a control of attention; we get a control of attention, we get a control of thinkingness. If we could get a very good control of thinkingness then the preclear can get a control of thinkingness. And all that's wrong with him is, he can't control his thinkingness. In the final analysis, that's what's wrong with the mind: a fellow can't control his own thinkingness.

All right. Very well. We know then at what we are aiming. Therefore, training of an auditor must wipe out diffidence in these three levels: (1) control of other people's bodies, (2) control of other people's attention, and (3) control of other people's thinkingnesses — obvious. Now, how do we encourage an auditor in his willingness to perform these three types of addresses to a case? The training drills, as we do them, were modified early in the course to include an actual process on the last day of the Comm Course. And that was found quite beneficial. That made the Comm Course integrate all the things they'd been doing in the week, and do them all at the same time with "Sit in the chair," and then we even comm bridge it over into "Touch that chair," and it was an actual process, not a coached process. So this wound up the Comm Course and made it a very excellent unit.

I think one of these days we will round out Upper Indoc similarly. Upper Indoc probably will be narrowed down to a point of where the last day of that week the auditor will actually do, probably, some version of 8-C uncoached. You got the idea? I mean, it's just actual preclear. Now, that would — that seems to be indicated.

Now, the actual training of people in how to do processes is something else — something else. This actually falls halfway between getting somebody processed and teaching him to do the process. It's halfway in between. We've moved out of the sphere of pure training for case gain when we move up into the CCH course. When we get up there, why, actually, what do we need?

Now we — although we have this thing called a repetitive question in the Communication Course, the repetitive question actually does not guarantee an ability to duplicate by the auditor — doesn't guarantee it at all. In the first place, origin is getting in his road. In the second place, coaching instructions interrupt the duplication, and the tedium of absolute duplication is relieved by the drills themselves.

So you could say (1) there is no duplication to amount to anything in a Comm Course, and (2) duplication is absolutely necessary in a CCH course. "Give me that hand. Thank you." Oh, man, the duplication this requires! The ability to sit there and take it. Therefore, it's necessary to add some duplica-tive process in the later stages of training. And the earliest version of Opening Procedure by Duplication — Book and Bottle — the earliest version is undoubtedly the best version. It was right when it was released, and that contains color, weight and temperature.

Now, we say, "Pick up that book." We don't really tell the fellow to pick it up with his body and every now and then you have a tremendous confidence on the part of the preclear that he himself could pick up the book, which is quite interesting. We do tell him to look at it. And that would probably be the only limitation of command: it would be "Through that body's eyes, look at it," would be a much more accurate command at that point. But this Op Pro by Dup as we used to do it way back when, does accomplish this duplication and breaks down the unwillingness to duplicate on the part of the student because it's almost as therapeutic to run it as to receive it.

Now, there — there we have solved something that there is no need to solve in the Communication Course. There's no need to solve this in the Communication Course. In the first place he's already handling a formidable battery of new skills if you're just taking somebody brand-new on this. And to add the ardures of duplication would almost murder him in his tracks. So that can be very well — now, that doesn't mean that you'd permit him not to duplicate an auditing command, but it's very, very easy, really, to duplicate a simplicity such as "Do fish swim?" and so on. But people quite often, in spite of all this, wind up at the end of a Comm Course sitting there in the chair just counting the seconds until the end of the session, see? Quite an ordinary frame of mind at the end of a Comm Course.

Well now, this is broken down at CCH level. It is best — be best broken down by, evidently, Op Pro by Dup or something of that character. And there's hardly anybody here who hasn't run or been run on Op Pro by Dup. Therefore, for this particular unit we are omitting it and substituting a very beefy process designed to do things with confrontingness. Much beefier than was being run in the CCH A course. That was a pat-a-cake.

Now, here we have — here we have then, what will apparently be for a long time to come the training pattern of Scientology — and it has been very well confirmed. And the number of changes that have taken place by reason of the 18th ACC are few. I have pointed out what most of the changes and differences would be.

Now, I could add these various things. Evidently shouting in the Comm Course gets the student entirely off and away and out of control because he's already trying to run a total effect on the other one. He's already trying to run a total effect on the other fellow. And when you encourage him to shout, he really never does learn the elements of the Effect Scale. And the Effect Scale definitely must be taught to somebody in the Comm Course. And then he is going to be permitted to exercise the Effect Scale where it is effective — and shouting isn't part of it. He'll get much further whispering. You can knock somebody's silly head off with a whisper.

When I was at dinner tonight I noticed some of you people getting real slippy. A person came over and he gives me a note back and so forth and he gives me a nice Tone 40, very low-voiced "Okay," you see? And it almost knocks my head off! You people are getting there, that's for sure.

Well, this is a skill. You don't have too much time to teach somebody in a Comm Course anyway, and if you, in a Comm Course, get this whole idea of putting a vocal communication across, the Effect Scale, on the quiet side, they'll learn far more. All right. That's evidently according to findings here.

Now, in the Upper Indoc Course, let them shout their heads off. It doesn't matter. Shouting is less important than you might think. But ability to get a win by reaching something with a voice is not to be despised, by a long way. But if you had a very, very limited time, the drill which was run second could be run just in its basic three elements of space, voice into the space and intention into the ashtray. Those three, all by themselves will do a job in a rather fast hurry if you haven't got any time to flatten a person's vocal upsets.

Now, a lot of people threw ridges out in front of their faces, just the exact shape of their shoutingnesses. They threw a bunch of ridges out in front, and when they did the second drill they disintegrated the ridges which they had built with shouting. Quite amusing. But if any shouting is going to be done, it would be after he has learned that to achieve an effect he had better not try for a total effect. And it's a good thing to get an auditor over that in a hurry and early.

The trouble we have had in Dianetics and Scientology in seven years has mainly stemmed from people who had to have a total effect on the other fellow. Total effect. Best possible processing that could be done would throw the person into an entire convulsion, leave him retching on the floor for hours, and end of session would be picking up his legs in one corner of the room, his arms in another and gluing his head back on like a Dresden doll. And these boys never did make any cases gain. They just wanted a big effect. So to get an auditor over this very early is very, very good.

But in spite of all the little odds and ends that we've learned, we have learned something about coaching. Besides, we knew already that it took a good coach, that coaching was a high skill all in itself. There was a lot to know about coaching. But just here toward the end of the course, was finally able to articulate a coach's — not his responsibilities and not the other things, we already have gone over these things — but something he could do that would keep his auditor winning and keep him advancing rather consistently. And that is emphasis on single points in the drill.

Now, that rotational type of coaching is proving to be quite successful. But let me cover this and articulate it the way I see it right here at its conception, before it has any chance to get complicated. You'll notice all of these drills tend to get complicated. But we knew this. Earlier ACCs, we talked about simplicity-complexity, how people would ordinarily slop over into complexity rather than to move back into simplicity. All right. So these drills quite ordinarily become complex.

You will find that any Instructor, lacking a lot of self-discipline, will take a Comm Course and make it terribly complex. It'll just get more and more complex. And if you were just to start up some sort of a school and you were to teach the upper grades and you had somebody teaching the Comm Course and he didn't know much how, but you just thought, "Well, he'll get away with it somehow," you would find out that he starts teaching them more and more and more and more. And finally, on the first day, they get the rudiments, the Axioms, Book One, Dianetics 55!, AP&A, and then they memorize, toward the end of that evening, all the Dianetic Axioms in case they might miss something. And that would be a good first day in a Comm Course according to a lot of Instructors. They learn better. They learn better quite rapidly.

Actually, what a person can grasp when he first fronts into this is not what you have been able to grasp in this unit at all. It's quite microscopic. His attention is terribly confused. You have to give him little tiny data that are acceptable to him. And he goes out of the first couple of days clutching to his bosom some of the oddest data. If you just stop some of these people and ask them, "What did you learn?" — because I get reports from these people all the time and it's just perfectly wild what an HCA or an HPA report will consist of. "What I have learned!" and in all sobriety the person will tell you, "Well, I've learned that the Instructor's a professional auditor," or something like this. I mean, he's gotten something big out of his first few days, you see?

Well, first place, everything is new to him. He's in a new locale, he's addressing a new subject, he's not quite sure what's expected of him and the stable data he can be given are very few. He has tremendous questions. Amongst his questions is, "Does Scientology have any real workability at all?" See, he doesn't have any experience in this line. So therefore he goes through these early drills with a considerable amount of fog. And to give him a successful run through a Comm Course, it is essential that he be given things he can grasp and that they be said often enough and done often enough so that he eventually finds out that these are the things he's supposed to grasp! You see, that is the thing he's trying to learn: "What am I supposed to grasp?" He's supposed to grasp the training drills. That's what he's basically supposed to grasp.

Now, he also grasps, on a Comm Course when you're just starting out with new people, he's also supposed to grasp an Auditor's Code. He certainly wouldn't be much good for that. If he wants to know more about communication, you give him Dianetics 1955! to read. But if you go any further than that, why, you're going to be in trouble. Now, we don't expect a person to have a finished attitude toward Scientology at the end of one week, but we certainly expect that he would be able to communicate much better than he had been communicating! That's the only thing we want out of that week.

All right. If that is the case, then what is the coach? Remember this fellow is also the coach, alternately. So we have to give him a rather simple series of things to do, which he himself will feel he can do. Well, all right, that's fine. If you were to tell him, "Now, you're supposed to keep that — in confronting (TR 0), you're supposed to keep that fellow's feet on the floor, his hands in his lap and he isn't to fall out of the chair, his head isn't to sink on his chest and he's to sit there in that position and that is what the coach is supposed to maintain.

Well now, you'll find out he can do this rather well. But you still have to needle him a little bit and get him in there — and he'll be very diffident. After all, you forget that possibly you too were diffident once about suddenly reaching over and touching somebody. You know, very diffident about touching somebody's chin or adjusting his head and so on. You got to make him do a little reaching toward the auditor in order to get confronting done. Well, that's fine, that's an awfully simple drill.

As we move on later in the course, however, the drill is never absent. And the next day we pick up communicating to somebody. And that's confronting and communicating to — and we have to do both of these things. Right? And on the third day we do confronting, communicating to and acknowledging. Right? Getting more complicated now, isn't it?

But let's look at it from the coach's viewpoint. He did find out that he could make somebody sit in a chair. All right. He found out he could make somebody sit in a chair and not fall out of it. Well, very good. Now, on communicating to, however, he will happily open up the whole world of elocution, diction! It wouldn't matter if the preclear had an accent that was a perfectly normal accent for the area, why, the coach would certainly criticize it. It has nothing to do with the drill, don't you see? That's because the coach doesn't know what he's supposed to be doing! That's why he does that.

So we could look at this this way — this is the way we train a coach. And this we have learned in the 18th — he does win with the first day's drill because he did get the fellow to sit in the chair and not fall out of it. Right?

On the second day's drill, he's handling something new, which is communicate to. Well then, we could do it this way: for three commands he pays attention to nothing but confronting; for the next three commands he pays attention to nothing but communicate to; for the next three commands he pays attention to nothing but confronting; the next three commands he pays no attention to anything but communicate to. Do you get the idea? And we just go on that way for the whole day! Got that? It doesn't have to be three, but that's to give you order of magnitude. It isn't important on this second day, but the number of commands gets important on the third and very important on the fourth and extremely important on the fifth, because there are so many parts now that a coach could hang up easily for half of a morning on one part, if he didn't have some specific number of commands to handle.

So what would this look like on the third day? Three commands, the coach would pay attention to communicate to; next three commands, he'd pay attention to acknowledge; next three commands, confront; next three commands, communicate to; next three commands, acknowledge. You got the idea?

Now you could shift this over and emphasize the fact that today we were doing acknowledgment by doing this: first three commands, confront; next three commands, communicate to; next five commands, acknowledge; next three commands, confront; next three commands, communicate to; next five commands, acknowledge. You got the idea? Just stressing that day's drill because it's so brand-new. Now, what would happen if we got clear on down the line to pc origin, with comm bridges and everything else? Well, that's starting to look real complicated. All right.

Now, what's the advantage of this type of coaching? We've found that coaching was bad only when the coach would not permit any wins to the student. So therefore, we could phrase it this way — well guarding the quantity that I've just enunciated, you know — don't let it go on and on and on for an hour on one piece, because the preclear-coach angle is only trying to get this other fellow comfortable with this step. All right. So if this is the case, he should really come off of it every time he gets a good one. Give the auditor a win and go on to the next one. Give the auditor a win, go on to the next one. Change only at wins. And the auditor would eventually discover that he could do the whole drill, and he'd have a win on the whole drill, only because he had a win on each of its parts.

Now, look how many steps there are in such a thing — tremendous number of steps there are in pc origin: understand it, acknowledge it, maintain ARC, return to session. This would apply the same way. And some such system could be worked out on each one of the parts, only we could take this just separate of all the other drills and just do these four parts.

Now similarly, we could take a comm bridge (the day before) and break it down into three parts. And for a little while, drill on nothing but the comm bridge and then go back to all the parts, don't you see? Confront, communicate to, acknowledge, repetitive question and then comm bridge. You see? And then you could — but you could take comm bridge all apart into its steps and have him do these, one right after the other until he just got used to handling each one.

Now, it's actually running a sort of a contact. As he contacts them he gains familiarity, not experience. And out of his familiarity comes confidence. It isn't how many gimmicks a coach can think up, really. It is the good 8-C that the coach can run upon the auditor. And if he runs good 8-C and doesn't give contrary directions of one kind or another, why, he could do it very, very well.

Now, this isn't trying to limit various hints, discussions, that sort of thing; that isn't trying to limit those things. But if you gave him a framework in which to work, by which he progressed every one of these steps all morning long as he was doing the drill as a coach, and he just brought it up to a win, changed it; brought it — next one up to a win, changed it. See, now we'd have the individual doing all of these things — doing the whole thing on the third day, of confront, communicate to and acknowledge. And he'd just go on doing all three of these things, see? He'd confront and communicate to and acknowledge. But while he's doing all these three things the coach only pays attention to acknowledgment. Do you see that? He does all three things; coach only pays attention to acknowledgment and then shifts over, and only pays attention to communication to, while he's doing confront, communicate to and acknowledge, and then goes over and only pays attention to confront while the fellow is doing it.

Now, you see the amount of familiarity which we would get there? We would cut down the amount of confusion, considerably raise the number of stable data. Now this we have learned and I consider it very valuable. Because this has been our puzzle: how do we make a good coach? Well, we can tell a person what to do in a little round of roodles here: he goes round and round and — on this, concentrating on first one part and then another part. He really would be interested enough in doing this so he'd never get off onto some pet bent of his own and start riding a hobbyhorse down into the ground, such as that broad "A's" should only be used, something of this sort.

I've heard some silly things said in coaching — very silly things. "That was not — did not sound mannerly." "That was insufficiently formal; this is Formal Auditing and your tone of voice is not formal." Now, funny part of it is.

I've heard a great many very smart things and very wise things said by coaches too. But I also know that coaching here is not coaching in a raw state. Now, this all becomes important, what I'm saying here, because for true, there'll be a lot of this sort of thing done. That's why I'm going to talk now, a little bit later here about the PE Course.

One other thing has been learned, and I already touched on that, and that is: evidently, the way to succeed on Tone 40 on an Object is give the guy some kind of a win that he could reach something with his voice. This knocks out his voice machinery. But don't pay any attention to the machinery of voice, see? Don't pay any attention to the fact it's voice machinery. Just give him a win on reaching something with his voice. Got that? That's the concentration point. And then go into this drill, which is simply: make the space in which the object exists; fill the space with the voice, and put the intention in the tray — make the tray stand up, sit down and so forth. But those three things have to be done in rotation. And you would coach them exactly the same way as I've just described.

You'd just go over it first and show him making space — what you mean by that. Clarify it all up. Find out what kind of space he's making: is it pink or purple? It sometimes is. And you just want space; you don't want anything in it. Then you want his voice filling the thing, and then you want him to get some familiarity with putting an intention in that.

Sometimes he can't get a thought into it, but he can get effort or he can get misemotion or he can get emotion. Sometimes he can't get the thought in there, but he could get effort. His idea of intention is effort in the ashtray, so you have to sometimes pay attention to that. And then having showed him each one of these, we would have him do these in rotation. And while he was doing these in rotation, we concentrate on just one at a time until he gets a good win. And while he's doing these in rotation, we concentrate on the next one until he gets a win. And still doing this rotation — he's doing three things but the coach is only paying attention to one. Then we have him put the intention in, don't you see? And he'll finally come up the line. He knows what's expected of him and so could win.

Now, it's quite important — quite important, that all of us have some kind of an idea of how to train people through these various steps. The most important of these are Comm Course and Upper Indoc. These are the most important.

Why? In the first place, there is a new grade of auditor that has been proposed. What the title will be or not, I don't know. But it is something on the bas — — . We had for a while Hubbard Provisional Auditor. We didn't issue very many of these; I don't think we even printed a certificate. I don't know. But not many of these were issued. Mostly because people were chopped up concerning the course and we were changing policy. It is no longer the policy here to permit organizations to issue, teach or certify; only individuals. You've seen a ghost of this in the past. So an individual has the right to do several things. Amongst them would be to issue this certificate.

Now, whether this form is final or not, this title is final or not, I could not tell you, but it is something on the order of Hubbard Apprentice Scientologist. It's an apprentice Scientologist. You get the idea? And all this fellow would have as a background would be a Comm Course and an Upper Indoc Course and nothing else. And all we would teach him how to do would be to handle people. And we wouldn't teach him how to process at all, or give him the idea that he was studying psychotherapy or the mind or anything else. Do you understand that? He's merely learning how to handle people, that's all. Handle people on the job, to handle people domestically and so forth. That's all you're teaching him how to do.

And the way we teach him to do it is just exactly as you've been studying Comm Course and Upper Indoc. No Auditor's Code? Don't have to worry about an Auditor's Code as far as he's concerned at that level because he wouldn't have a clue what it was all about, really. Instead of that, you tell him about misemotion. And you tell him that in the Comm Course with the drills! You say, "This is the way you talk to people. You don't shout and rant at them. You don't catch people when they're tired and worn out and bawl them out and kick them in the corner. This isn't the way to get any compliance." You'd have to back that up, out of your own initiative.

But here we discover something: that an individual who can handle the drills of the Comm Course and the Upper Indoc could teach people and handle people rather well, no matter what sort of a job he had. The only processing we would teach him would be those training drills which we saw back in the ACCs, the winter of '56-´57. Those little training drills. Teach him those drills. Give them the idea of repetition and so forth, the ideas of what he has to do to make somebody understand that. Do you understand that then?

Now, of course, this fellow — you'd say, "That is a code, that's called the Auditor's Code." Don't beat his head in with it. You'd say, "Well, here's the Code of a Scientologist — should have some vague working knowledge of this situation." You say, "Well, here's some axioms, if you want them."

But you don't try to teach him any of these things. Why? Good God, you're teaching him enough! See, you're just teaching him enough. The only theory that you'd teach him is, "People can be handled. How are people handled? They are handled by these drills. That's the way you handle people. Now, if you're a foreman on the job or an executive or somebody like that, you have to know how to confront these people and talk to them and answer up and so forth, and this is the way it's done."

Quite amusing. It's an amusing simplicity. It looks ghastly simple to you. It'd look quite upscale to somebody who'd never run into it. We sell it on the basis of, "This is how you train people; you have to know this, these drills, in order to teach people things, to get people to work, to get people to follow your orders. To associate on an even keel with the society at large, you need these drills." That's — we — he needs to be good in them.

Now, this would be quite interesting. If you can envision a foreman, a labor foreman knowing these drills, and just compare him with some run-of-the-mill person that you have tried to, just for a moment, show one of these things to (who knew nothing about Scientology), compare the blunderingness of that person with the possible ability to communicate and to handle people which would result from a rather thorough grounding (nontechnical, but awfully practical) in Comm Course and Upper Indoc. Now, that grounding then would be — would make quite a difference in this man's behavior, his ability to handle his — the human race at large, get a job done, get cooperation on the part of people and so forth. You know that is the case. So that's a pretty good grade.

Now, why do we give anything like that? That's because their certificate ought to be a little more than a basic auditor's certificate, and it shouldn't be as good as a professional certificate. But it ought to be a certificate. And it ought to be something that anyone certified to do so has a right to issue. You see that? He should have this — a right to issue that certificate.

All right. That certificate then would simply signify that this individual had had quite a little bit of training in Comm Course and Upper Indoc and could handle people and probably teach them things with the learning; and was probably of good moral character and wouldn't do you too much damage in the community. And you — he says, "Well now, what if I want to process people, what you call processing people?"

And you say, "Well, go ahead." And give him an assist sheet. You know, the old assists of one kind or another. Just give him an assist sheet. He'd certainly be able to do those assists better than anybody else. He'd probably get some considerable — but play down the idea that he would know anything really about professional processing. Because that can get pretty wild and he would not be able to cope with it, not even vaguely.

All right. Now, how about — how about more people to teach this to? What would happen if we had some sort of an activity which really squared these PE Courses around and moved people through? Well, I'll tell you the PE pattern that is now going to go into Dublin.

As you know, the PE Course consists of one week of evenings, of a free course. This free course is simply attended — registered in properly — Monday night, and is attended for two hours a night (with a break between the hours), for the remainder of the week. And the only thing that is done in that course is the basic definitions of existence, as contained in Scientology: Fundamentals of Thought, in Definition by Agreement. And that's all that's done that whole week.

Step two — not an advanced course. They're not ready for an advanced course. But weekend group intensives with some small charge; very small charge, just a few dollars. And you bring them in and give them — anywhere that suits your fancy — six to ten hours of Group Auditing on Saturday and Sunday. That's all. And during the week, you pitch this. You'd keep telling them, "This is what you ought to do. Once a month we have one of these intensives" (if you don't want to do it every weekend), "and the next one coming up is such and so." But you'll find out that you will get more people in and they will stay with you better if you gave it every week that you gave a free course, you followed it with. But that's pretty exhausting.

Well, you'd get those people in for just a few dollars and those people now have a reality on existence, as shown by the averages that have been worked out by many tests. Those people have a greater reality on existence. Their IQs are a bit up, their personality is a bit improved. Oddity, but just Definition by Agreement does all that. Then we move them up to where they'd get some Group Processing. And this Group Processing, over a period of these few hours, however few — if you're going to run it every weekend, you ought to probably cut the number of hours you're going to give right on down. But there we would have these people with something to come to which they could afford and which they would not find antipathetic, and about which they would probably be curious.

Unfortunately, it really takes two auditors to run, on new people particularly, a group intensive. And if you're doing it, just two auditors doing it, your goon squad of course can be somebody who is very untried and who knows very little about it. But two auditors, it actually takes, to alternate over the period of hours if you're going something like six or eight hours. You don't want to stand there for six and eight hours on a Group Processing. In the first place an individual isn't fresh, he tends to run down. A little bit harder to handle than an individual session, any day of the week. And so you would just run alternates or one auditor would do a couple of hours and the other would do a couple of hours and you'd work it off between you, you see, with an untrained, relatively untrained goon squad. It takes two people on the floor, one of whom must be an auditor.

And you do Tone 40 Group Processing. You tell these people what it's all about. You tell them you're not going to stop for hell or high water and that this is the way it's going to be; and if they don't execute the command, that fellow at the back of the room is the goon squad and he does see that they do it. You get an agreement with them on this subject, no matter how new or raw they are, and just run it. Don't go running a pat-a-cake. In other words, don't mess around. Because the boy who won't do your commands will mess up your group activity like mad. And if that guy's going to blow, you want him to blow early, not when he's enturbulated everybody in the group. That's for true! Because these boys are always present. They talk obsessively, they interrupt people, they spread entheta around, they raise hell. And it's a wonderful way to blow them. Wonderful way to get rid of them.

And they are gotten rid of in one of two ways: they're gotten rid of because they did the auditing command under the duress of your goon squad or because they couldn't take it and blew out the back door and you never heard of them again. And either way is okay. Somebody'11 pick them up, maybe next couple of lives. Anyway, we're very hard-boiled on that subject because we've seen very fine groups disintegrated by people who would not perform the auditing commands, wouldn't buy any auditing, would prevent everybody in the group from getting auditing if they possibly could. Lot of entheta and so forth. So you don't want to play this on the light side when you're running a group intensive. Be "sweetness and light and everybody's right but you" just before the intensive and afterwards, if you insist on this social pattern; but during the intensive, run it!

All right. So, there's your next leg up. You got a week of free Definition by Agreement training. People turned up. Don't try to give them lectures. In the first place, you have to be in good enough shape to run Definition by Agreement, to lecture. And lecturing is no substitute because you don't like to run Definition by Agreement. Do you know that there are people around that won't run Definition by Agreement, and then will only lecture because they cannot confront individuals of the group? It's very remarkable. Have to be above that level. So you run this Definition by Agreement, nothing but, for that week. And you run either that week or at regular intervals which you publicize, your group intensives, for which you charge a little bit of money.

Now, out of those group intensives you'll get individual preclears. That's for true. And out of those group intensives you will also get candidates for a low level of training, if it's pitched at something they can understand; and that something they can understand is handling their fellow man. And that's the only thing you talk to them about.

"You want to handle people better? Why, I can show you how. And you'll have to take, however, a course. Probably of some three months in length. And that course winds up with a certificate that makes you an apprentice Scientologist. And here's this course, and it runs this way: you sign up and you go something on this order: for the first six weeks you get, Monday, Wednesday and Friday." People, by the way, will not consistently and continually go to five-night-a-week courses. Wears them out, their families object and everything else. But they will go to three-night-a-week courses. So you say, "For the first six weeks, it goes three nights a week: Monday, Wednesday and Friday. And for the remaining six weeks it goes Tuesdays and Thursdays. And if you can make it, Saturdays. That'd be three, but remember you can do it two." I just had that offered me this afternoon as a fine solution. I know it is a good solution.

So, what would they do in these courses? Well, maybe they would go through the Comm Course twice and the Upper Indoc twice in those twelve weeks. Well, but do you run this course consecutively and continuously? And you run it three months and then get another batch of people and you run it three months? You certainly better not. The least you should enroll it is every six weeks; that's the least you should enroll it. And if you have your steps planned out in some fashion or other, you probably could enroll it every couple of weeks. Because I don't say three months is the right number. And if you wanted to enroll every couple of weeks, then you'd be running a Comm Course every couple of weeks, don't you see? That would give you six evenings on which you would spend an hour on each side of each step, in two weeks. And you could enroll every two weeks. Then you'd run your Upper Indoc for whatever length of time was necessary to run them through an Upper Indoc, at two or three nights a week.

Now, why do we stagger this? Why do we put the Upper Indoc and the Comm Course on a stagger? And that's because the liability for anybody working with few hands is that he himself cannot — well, he can't teach two courses at the same time. You have to have the same man teaching both courses, don't you see? So you stagger them so you've got a person available. It isn't whether the people have this time available or not. It's whether or not you've got an Instructor. You see this? That's what's important. So you can just take just one Instructor and run a whole HAS Course over and over and over and over. Enroll it every couple of weeks if you want to. And run them out the other end with nothing but Comm Course and Upper Indoc under their belts, and with no understanding except that they were going to handle people better. That's the only thing that you're promising them, the only thing at all that you're promising them. You don't tell them anything else — not going to be able to make anybody well or spit further or anything — it's just going to — they're going to handle people, that's all.

Now, you know and I know that in three months you're certainly not going to level out a Comm Course and an Upper Indoc Course in evenings at that infrequent an attendance. But you're certainly going to improve the living daylights out of somebody — enough to make him surprised about it. Now, this doesn't say that you couldn't take the ones that didn't catch on quick and run them back through again before you issued them their certificate. If you thought they were going to be a disgrace to you in some fashion, train them until they wouldn't.

But what does this give us then? This gives us a very good opportunity to build up a number of people in our own community who are not pretending to be professional auditors but are only handling people and jobs better. They're doing a better job of living because of Scientology. They can call themselves a Scientologist, which would not then mean to them a psychotherapist or a psychologist or something of this sort. Do you see? Wouldn't have that connotation to it at all. It'd be somebody who was handling life better.

All right. If you have this strung out to that degree, let me assure you that you would have a great many individual intensives to do. You would have income — rather significant income.

Now, what is the real beauty, financially, behind one of these HAS Courses? That is, they can pay a very small amount at the beginning of every week. Monday night they appear with their small payment. This payment for the whole course is stretched across all three months. Now, maybe you make them pay down a little bit of money just to make sure they'll appear and continue to appear, but you can certainly work within their financial reality. And you would be surprised, if it cost them five dollars a week or three dollars a week even, how many three dollars add up into a considerable sum of money. You got the idea? And you'd be surprised if you were only charging — this would be ridiculous — two dollars per group intensive, see? This is awful come-on. You're only charging two dollars for that and you still have built your group up to where you had thirty, forty people taking the thing. Why, you got a hundred and some dollars for a weekend's work, and who would despise that? I wouldn't. Matter of fact, I've been giving my auditing away too long here, I mean.. .

Now, looking at it in this wise, because we're dealing in small sums, always dealing in small sums, then nobody jumps. And there was an outfit once called Woolworth. And a Woolworth approach to this sort of a situation is not a bad approach at all. And I'll be brutal with you — you are entering in upon times when money isn't what it was. It isn't — there's all kinds of it in the society and none of it loose. Well, the way to get the money loose is to get it loose a dime at a time. Get the idea? Chip it out there a nickel or a dime at a time and you've got it made.

Anybody would take a course — I don't care, let's be ridiculous, let's say this course was going to cost them $150. Let's peg it high or something. And that $150 would look awfully big to somebody. But now let's break it down and that costs $50 a month. Now let's break down the $50 a month: well, it costs $12 a week. Now you see how fast that would break down. Now let's take $5 a week and add it back up and find out what it would become and we find out that it's a $60 course. Now, if you're enrolling quite frequently, why, you're still taking in $60 for every one of those people that goes — going to go out and handle people better.

In other words, we have to think of the financial side of this. We're not in this business to make money or we wouldn't be here, but we certainly had better not starve to death in the process, because people don't approve of your ribs showing through. That's an Asiatic fixation, that a man, to be holy, must be suffering from malnutrition.

All right. How do you get the people there in the first place? We still, to this minute, do not have a better gimmick than, "I will talk to anyone for you, about anything." That's still a winner.

The only trouble is, those people who have used it and then have answered the phone when it rang, and who have actually attended to this thing across the boards and have done it in a very businesslike way, get off on this silly kick: they get a mailing list of three or four hundred people and then that mailing list by word of mouth keeps expanding because of free courses and they don't do it anymore and it gets lost. Or they put ads in the paper and they get it all set and then they don't have anybody there to answer the phone — they're very unbusinesslike about the thing. Or — and this is the other thing they did which was real cute — they solved everybody's problem over the phone when the person called.

That you must never do! And where we've had flops, why, that's really been the flop point. Person would call up and say, "Well, I'm having an awful problem with my husband. He won't come home, he's down at the local bar and he's in those wide, swinging doors and nobody can get him out."

And you say, "Well, why don't you do so-and-so and so-and-so."

And she goes down and gets him out of the wide, swinging doors and you never hear of either of them again.

You don't do that. You always have them come in for an interview. It doesn't matter if they're suffering for a broken leg, it doesn't matter what's happening. They come to see you for an interview and you book their name and address fully. If you can make them come to see you, not you go to see them, you eventually wind up with a very fine mailing list. Now, there are dozens of ways to get around, but that has been the one which has been most functional.

Now, word of mouth spreads to the degree that you are good. Let's not kid ourselves: our word of mouth is as good as we're good. I can go into the Academy any day and tell, within a three-week lag, whether or not the Academy course is good. This is a fantastic thing. It's not so true in processing, but it is true in training. You go in there and these people, if you've got a heavy enrollment, your course has been good. If you've got a lot of new people in the Comm Course, your course is good. If you haven't got anybody in the Comm Course, it's for the birds.

I don't know why this is. It's almost esoteric. I don't know how they find out about it all over the country or all over the world so quick. But you get a lousy Comm Course Instructor and you all of a sudden have nobody. You have a good one, all of a sudden you're full. Now, the only other thing that happens that monitors this, is when you have a good Registrar, you have students; when you have a bum one, you don't have any.

Ireland was busy complaining about the lack of business and an auditor was sent over from London to find out why the Irish office wasn't getting any business. He found the Irish office wasn't even answering people's letters. He answered all the letters he could find lying under the blotter, which wasn't all the letters that had arrived by a long way, and he has, from a zero bank balance, achieved a ninety-six pound bank balance in about two and a half weeks, zoom! Just by answering the letters. He didn't even improve the service! You understand? I mean, this is functional. You have to answer your mail! And when I say answer your mail, I mean answer it. I don't mean write a letter back.

When people ask you questions, answer them. It doesn't matter whether they are well stated or not; try to answer them.

Now, a lot of people here the last few nights have been giving me some questions about processes. Somebody wants to know the difference between anger and antagonism here — it's .5 degrees on the Tone Scale. And somebody said, "You'd said earlier that you had a process to run out between-lives area." That is exactly right, and you'll be running it next week. Having answered those questions . . . Answer their questions!

We did a very silly thing the other day. Bonnie went down to find somebody out of the Central Files for me. He brought back a letter which was the wrong person but it had a letter in it that was eighteen months old and the person hadn't added any letter for eighteen months. But eighteen months ago this person had written in and this person had said, "I'm working with children and I wonder if you have any more information on the subject." And whoever had answered the letter had answered it just a little bit off pitch. It was almost an answer to the person's questions. So I said, "Bonnie, answer her questions." And he did. And promptly we heard from the person; instantly and immediately the person ordered the book. We told her to order and she's in communication and everything's going along beautifully.

How many dead end like this? So an auditor has to do some administration. If he doesn't, he's dead. So given administration, which is to say, answering the mail, at least putting the money in your hat when it's thrown on the floor — these elementary things. Given that and given the fact that you're running a good PE, free course, and you're running some Group Processing and you're running a basic course to teach people how to handle people, you absolutely couldn't lose, not for a minute. Couldn't lose. And I don't want you to do any losing. I'm here to see that you win if you possibly can.

This is very far from the last lecture of the course, because I will give you that last lecture on the last day of the course. And we've got a whole week and one day to go in which you're going to make a tremendous lot of strides of improvements. You have done beautifully, but you're only up to a lower order of miracle, and I don't buy that.

I want you to put into practice particularly what I've been telling you tonight about coaching. And I want you to at least double the amount of advance which has been achieved on the people you are coaching for the remainder of this course. There are eight, seven, six — six whole days left. And you've got four days of processing next week — nights of processing — which shouldn't happen to anybody, not even you. But there's quite a long ways to go yet. This happens to be, however, the last technical lecture of the series.

So thank you very much.