The Emotional Feedback Mechanism of Dianetics and Scientology [First published on alt.religion.scientology in 1999. Edited and revised 9/01.] Introduction I am convinced that there is no scientific validity to Hubbard's engram theory.

I am also convinced that there is no evidence to support Hubbard's assertion that auditing creates predictable and inevitable improvement for the recipient.

Every scientific study of dianetic auditing has shown that it is ineffective in producing measurable improvement in intellectual functioning and personality conflict (neurosis). One study (Fischer, 1953:

http://www.xenu.net/archive/fischer/) indicates that dianetic auditing caused a slight decline in these areas of functioning as well as arithmetic ability.

Anyone who has given or received auditing has observed or experienced an effect brought about as a direct result of the auditing process. If we conclude that Hubbard's theories are disproved then we need to determine what effects are being created on the recipient of the auditing process and how they are being created.

I wish to present my own hypothesis to this forum for a peer review. I would especially appreciate feedback from both recipients (PCs) and auditors.

Hypothesis Both dianetic and scientology auditing is designed to create a pleasant effect on the PC. This effect is created by an emotional feedback mechanism that is comprised of the PC, the auditor and the e-meter. This pleasant effect is not necessarily indicative of any type of measurable improvement in the PC.

Indoctrination When a PC begins his auditing he receives what is called a C/S 1. The C/S 1 is a set of instructions in the form of a technical bulletin (HCOB) that are applied by the auditor to the PC in a formal session setting. The PC is "on the meter", i.e. holding the electrodes of the e-meter during the C/S 1 session(s).

The auditor keeps full worksheets throughout the session(s).

The purpose of the C/S 1 is to define the subject of auditing for the PC, answer any questions that the PC might have and orient the PC to the basic operating principles of auditing. Hubbard refers to this process as "hatting the PC".

Completing the C/S 1 can take anywhere from 2 to 10 hours depending on the intelligence of the PC and his emotional state at the time.

The auditor uses several auditing techniques during the delivery of the C/S 1.

The auditor asks the PC for the definitions of many words, some common and some specific to dianetics and/or scientology. This procedure is called word clearing. It's the auditor's job to be sure that the PC has the correct definitions for all the words that need to be defined. The auditor also employs a discussion technique called two-way communication (2WC) to answer the PC's questions and verifies the PC's understanding as to concepts and definitions.

These techniques are designed to reinforce the PC's belief in, and acceptance of the basic principles of auditing as defined by Hubbard. The PC is indoctrinated directly, and indirectly to accept the mechanics of the auditing session and the auditor's authority. Most importantly, an expectation is established in the PC as to what he will experience in a session. The most valued phenomenon in the session is the "cognition," also referred to as a "win." The auditor always validates a win by indicating to the PC that the needle on the e-meter is "floating."

By the end of the C/S 1 the PC has learned the following things, among others:

1) The auditor is in total control of the session and the PC during the session.

2) The auditor is responsible for the outcome of the session.

3) The e-meter can detect the PC's thoughts below the level of the PC's conscious awareness.

4) The only needle reaction that the PC will be explicitly informed of during a session is the floating needle (F/N).

5) The e-meter can indicate to the auditor whether the PC is lying or telling the truth.

6) The proper end of a session is with the PC happy and an F/N on the e-meter.

7) The PC never ends a session on his own determinism.

8) The case supervisor (C/S) is the auditor's superior and is the final authority on decisions regarding the PC's case.

9) The auditor and the C/S together know more about the PC and the PC's case than the PC does.

10) The auditor and PC in combination are greater than the PC's reactive bank (case).

11) The PC's case can have a devastating effect on his physical and mental health if it is not resolved through auditing.
The Role of the E-meter Although the role of the e-meter is extensively documented in scientology literature I know of no independent study that has been done to determine what correlation (if any) exists between the various needle actions and the emotional state of a test subject.

There are 18 needle actions that an auditor must know. He must be able to recognize each one without hesitation or error and he must know their significance verbatim. Hubbard's list of needle actions can be found here:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/E-Meter/drills.html#drill12 The two most significant needle actions are the fall and the F/N. I have witnessed every one of the 18 needle actions during the course of my training and/or in a formal auditing session. My experience is that within the context of dianetic and scientology auditing each needle action corresponds to a change in the PC's mental and/or emotional state (as defined by Hubbard). For the purpose of my hypothesis I am assuming that the e-meter consistently reacts to the emotional changes in the PC that are produced during an auditing session.

An in depth technical analysis of the electronic design and circuit function of the e-meter can be found here:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/E-Meter/ The e-meter is the auditor's primary tool. Training in its use is a large part of an auditor's training regimen. With the e-meter, the auditor becomes an all-knowing seer into the PC's case. The auditor believes this as much (if not more than) the PC does. Hubbard tells auditors repeatedly that their e-meter is their best friend in a session and to always believe what it indicates to them.

The auditor is instructed to believe the e-meter regardless of what the PC says.

If the e-meter indicates that the PC is lying then the auditor will believe that the PC is lying regardless of what the PC says to the contrary. The auditor will not accept the PC's assertions of truthfulness until those assertions are verified by the e-meter. For the auditor to do otherwise is considered to be a serious procedural error.

The Role of the Auditor Confidence, certainty, consistency and control are the most important qualities for an auditor to possess. According to Hubbard, the auditor must have "altitude" over the PC. The PC must feel comfortable with the idea of putting himself and his case in the auditor's hands. The auditor must never appear at a loss as to what to do. The auditor must never make a procedural error in a session. But even if the auditor makes a gross error, he is trained to never apologize to the PC under any circumstances.

Once the PC is fully indoctrinated and confident that the auditor is competent, all of the components of the emotional feedback loop are in place.

An Example of the Emotional Feedback Loop With all the components in place the only thing that the auditor has to do to begin the feedback process is to elicit an emotional response from the PC.

There are many ways to do this. It could be said that the hundreds of processes that exist in dianetics and scientology have in common their ability to elicit an emotional response from a PC.

The following is a simple but accurate example of the emotional feedback loop in operation. This example is based on my experience as an auditor and my understanding of the correct application (as defined by Hubbard) of auditing procedures.

The Present Time Problem The present-time problem (PTP) is addressed as the first of the 6 auditing rudiments. Hubbard defines the auditing rudiments as areas where a PC's attention might be occupied at the start of a session. The auditor must address and bring to an F/N any of the 6 rudiments that might be an issue before continuing with the session.

A PTP is defined as something that the PC perceives as a problem at the moment and one that he feels he must resolve before he will feel willing to address other issues in session. An auditor will typically check rudiments if there is no F/N at the start of the session.

The patter is as follows:

Auditor: Do you have a present time problem?

[The auditor is looking for a needle reaction (read) that occurs precisely at the end of his question. A read that occurs before or after the precise end of his question is ignored. The auditor asks the question while observing the e-meter. If a valid read occurs the auditor will look up at the PC expectantly.

The PC now knows that there has been a read on the question.] PC: Yes, I guess I do.

Auditor: Okay. Tell me about it.

PC: I've been putting off doing my taxes for months. Now I only have two days before I have to file my return.

[This process is done "muzzled"; i.e. the auditor does not discuss the particulars with the PC. The auditor is looking for an F/N so that he can continue with the session. If there is no F/N after the PC states the problem then the auditor asks for an earlier similar problem.] Auditor: Thank you. Is there an earlier similar problem?

PC: I was in the same boat last year. I had to stay up all night before the deadline to finish my forms. I promised myself that I would never do that again. Oh well, maybe next year I'll get them done early [PC smiling].

[The auditor notes down the gist of the PC's response to the questions and the PCs emotional tone (cheerful, angry, grief, etc.) in the session worksheets. He pays close attention to the e-meter, watching for an F/N. The auditor is trained to not indicate the F/N unless the PC is cheerful or enthusiastic.] Auditor: Thank you. Your needle is floating.

The auditor's indicating the F/N to the PC completes the feedback loop.

Indicating the F/N tells the PC, "You did well, we're done with this process, you have indeed gained an insight, a resolution, etc."

Conclusions The emotional feedback mechanism is established as the first component of the PC's introduction to auditing. This mechanism is the basis for all dianetic and scientology auditing and is the sole source of the perceived effectiveness and workability of both disciplines.

Fischer's study indicates that the mechanism itself might be harmful. However, Fischer's study includes only an 18-hour auditing period for one group of 12 subjects, and a 36-hour auditing period for another group of 12 subjects. A third group of 12 subjects received no auditing and were utilized as the control group. No follow-up study was conducted.

Regardless of the level of inherent harmfulness in Hubbard's auditing techniques, it can certainly be applied in such a way as to create dependency and emotional vulnerability in the PC. I believe that both dianetic and scientology auditing techniques are specifically designed to continuously strengthen this feedback mechanism. As the mechanism strengthened, a dependency is created that increases over time. The greater the dependency, the more easily the PC is manipulated by the organization to commit greater amounts of time and money. As the organization increases its demands, the PC can experience increasing levels of stress.

Based on my direct experience while a scientologist and the experience of other former scientologists, it's apparent to me that the mechanism itself can affect people in different ways. The greatest danger seems to be at the higher scientology levels where the PC becomes his own auditor (solo auditing). It there that the mechanism is the strongest, and the stress that the typical PC is under is the highest. I believe that this combination creates the majority of the psychotic breaks and mental instability observed in scientologists.

It my ardent hope that the mental health field becomes more familiar with this mechanism as it apples to scientology and other cult-like organizations, for the mental health professional is often the last hope for those who have been victimized in this way.

David Cecere <dcecere@yahoo.com>
_____________________________________________________________________________ "Thinking is, or ought to be, a coolness and a calmness; and our poor hearts throb, and our poor brains beat too much for that."--Herman Melville

Go Back