A Look at Scientology Auditing

Scientology Axiom 11 states:

AS-IS-NESS is the condition of immediate creation without persistence, and is the condition of existence which exists at the moment of creation and the moment of destruction, and is different from other considerations in that it does not contain survival.”

Scientology Axiom 19 states:

Bringing the static to view as–is any condition devaluates that condition.”


It is my understanding that at the moment of AS-IS-NESS there is complete awareness of what one is postulating or viewing. There is nothing hidden. One has a choice to make it persist or not persist. This is how Scientology auditing works. Scientology processes, when applied in a session, guide a person where to look.

This principle is borrowed from Buddhism, which exhorts one to:

“Observe things as they really are, not just as they seem to be.”

In Buddhism, the above principle of mindfulness is to be applied at all times and not, as in Scientology, only when a person is in session.


In Scientology, a person is made to look deeply into one’s mind through repetition of process “commands.” Under such  introversion a person is likely to be vulnerable. Any little error in directing a person’s attention can have adverse consequences. Some of these consequences may be  subtle and may last beyond the session, resulting in conditioning. Though there are actions built into Scientology to minimize such errors, the liability exists for such processes to cause harm, especially through misuse.

But Buddha simply asks one to be mindful of what is there.

“Observe without expecting anything, or attempting to get an answer.”

One does not have to go around searching into one’s memory. One simply lets the mind unwind itself naturally starting from whatever is grabbing one’s attention. This way one can look deeply into one’s psyche without any liability. There is a simple and natural way one goes about practicing mindfulness.

Scientology auditing can be made simpler and more effective by following the Buddhist principle of mindfulness, instead of mechanically repeating an auditing command.


An E-meter is used in Scientology to direct a person’s attention in a session. The E-meter is connected to the person. The reactions on the E-meter guide the person where to look. This is fine but it creates a dependence on the E-meter. The E-meter, or the interpretation of its needle reactions, is not error free.

A conflict often occurs when the E-meter reaction indicates something ought to be there, but the person sees nothing. The person, depending on the E-meter, then digs into the mind, and the liability of conditioning comes into play. It then takes ‘CORRECTION LISTS’ to dig the person back out. This is not rare. This happens routinely in Scientology auditing sessions.

Blind digging into the mind, is a liability, which can be prevented with the use of mindfulness.

Such errors may be avoided by simply looking at what is there and not blindly digging into the mind. If nothing is there then one may simply accept that nothing is there. It is my opinion that training on mindfulness may make Scientology processes run much faster and with better results. This may, however, render the E-meter obsolete. In my opinion, E-meter is a marketing ploy. Auditing goes more smoothly and effectively with trained mindfulness.


In Scientology, a person is encouraged to talk in session about his intimate details as one looks at one’s experience. Everything the person says is recorded. The records are  kept in multiple, thick folders. Such information is used by auditors and case supervisors to determine the processes to be run in auditing sessions. The liability exists for this information to be misused.

Collection of intimate personal details is a liability, which can be eliminated with the use of mindfulness.

Gains in auditing come from the person observing and becoming aware, and not from talking about one’s experiences. But a lot of intimate personal details are gathered in Scientology by getting the person to talk about himself so some ‘expert’ can resolve his case through ‘case programming’.

No such information need be gathered when mindfulness is practiced. A battery of processes may be applied one after another. The mind then unstacks itself naturally whenever the processing question is applicable. The battery of processes may be repeated as long as natural unstacking is taking place. That is the extent of ‘case programming’ needed. It is taken care of by the mind itself. Thus, with the application of mindfulness, one’s privacy need not be compromised while the case is getting resolved.


The setup of a Scientology session is quite elaborate. The E-meter is an essential part of it. Thus, guidance in Scientology cannot be provided over long distances using phone, or Skype on Internet. This is an enormous limiting factor in this Information age of today.

With mindfulness it becomes possible to provide Scientology auditing over long distances.

No such limitation exists when the practice of mindfulness replaces the use of E-meter. One can routinely conduct Scientology auditing sessions using phone, or Skype on Internet, with great effectiveness.


Thus, it appears that considerable liability attached to Scientology auditing may be eliminated with the use of mindfulness. Also eliminated will be the expense associated with training of auditors on complex auditing actions. The auditor’s function would simply consist of providing auditing commands and to ensure that mindfulness is being practiced by both auditor and the preclear. No Case Supervisor would be necessary. This would make it possible to deliver auditing in much greater volume while also increasing the effectiveness of  Scientology applications.

With mindfulness it becomes possible to provide Scientology auditing inexpensively in much greater volume.

Scientology claims itself to be an extension of Buddhism. Let mindfulness also be incorporated into Scientology from Buddhism. There is a great potential in Scientology to spread as a grass roots movement, like Buddhism did 2600 years ago, with great benefit to everybody.


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • vinaire  On October 5, 2012 at 5:15 PM

    I am very aware that Scientologist will say that if one replaces E-meter by mindfulness then it won’t be Scientology any more. It would be a different subject.

    Unfortunately, such people do not understand Scientology from the viewpoint of Scientology Axioms and Logics. Their understanding is very shallow.


    • Elizabeth Hamre  On November 18, 2013 at 2:50 AM

      V.. I have not used the emeter since mid 80’s, so I can call that mindfulness?
      The repetitive questions are there to teach the person, to make the person confront that item.. At the beginning that is needed but later when one is solo auditing, the repetitive questions are not in need. One simply looks what is there and that is called ” blowing charge by inspection. Simply see what is all and understand everything about the subject.

  • Jay  On October 5, 2012 at 6:08 PM

    You are omitting tons of facts. You are projecting your viewpoint into that of others. I can see that you have not learned real Scientology but are really just a glorified “Glib student”.

  • vinaire  On October 5, 2012 at 6:30 PM

    I would appreciate if you follow the following policy on this blog.

    Discussions and what needs to be avoided

    Please provide at least one fact that you are referring to if you wish to participate in a proper discussion.


    • Jay  On October 5, 2012 at 6:56 PM

      Gradient Scales. The Grade Chart is a series of Gradients to higher states. Even Buddha had to take gradient steps to walk up a mountain.

  • vinaire  On October 5, 2012 at 7:08 PM

    I understand gradient scales quite well. How am I omitting the gradient scales above? Please be patient with me and explain it to me. Thanks.

    • Jay  On October 5, 2012 at 9:29 PM

      Thank you for your comm. The answer to me is that the Axiom applies to the spiritual universe, not the physical universe. What is said in the Axiom is true in the “Theta Universe”. The Grade Chart if followed moves the Theta Being out of the physical universe and back to the Theta Universe. Does this clarify my point to you better?

      • Chris Thompson  On October 6, 2012 at 2:27 AM

        Do you have the reference for that Scientology Jay?

        • Jay  On October 6, 2012 at 11:11 AM

          Yes read the read The Grade Chart and listen to the lectures on the Awareness Characterics. Listen to the entire Technique 88 series 1952 and the History of Man Seires and demo the different universes..

        • Chris Thompson  On October 6, 2012 at 10:22 PM

          ah, well I see then. Possibly I should study HCOBs as well?

        • vinaire  On October 6, 2012 at 3:06 PM

          This comment from Jay,

          (1) does not contribute to a discussion.
          (2) asks others to do its work.
          (3) brings unnecessary ego to the table.

          Such comments, which violate the discussion policy, shall not be allowed on this blog in the future.


    • vinaire  On October 6, 2012 at 3:55 AM

      Jay, it is very interesting that you say that as-iness axiom applies to the spiritual universe and not to the physical universe. Actually, we are having this same discussion going at Imagination vs. Knowledge: What is the relationship of mental reality to physical reality?. You are welcome to join in there if you wish.

      It is interesting to see how such discussions are prohibited in the Church of Scientology. I don’t see any good reason why that should be so.

      About Spiritual (Theta) universe and Physical (MEST) universe the reference is THETA-MEST theory, which is presented in detail in Hubbard’s book “Scientology 8-8008”. The premise is,

      “Spiritual and physical are two separate universes.”

      I question this premise. I find that spiritual and physical are two different aspects of the same system. Here is my explanation.


      Let’s discuss the above premise underlying THETA-MEST theory.


      • Jay  On October 6, 2012 at 11:18 AM

        I appreciaet the invite and I will read it. However, I audit and the best way I know is to train people on the ’52 data with checksheets and not just the “OT Hatting’ the cos does with their drills but to actuallu listen to the lectures by the old man and with the full use of study tech do the course and audit it. In the ’50s they did not have study tech nor did they have checksheets and wordclearers. When that is all put togheter the student really gets it and does apply it. The cos does not allow it because they want salves. Obviously you and I and other independents don’t.

        • vinaire  On October 6, 2012 at 3:08 PM

          Thank you. I love the Study Tech too.


  • vinaire  On October 6, 2012 at 4:18 AM

    I posed the following question on Marty’s blog.

    Isn’t the following an inconsistency?

    (1) Scientology encourages one to think for oneself.

    (2) Those who deviate from Scientology belief are called “squirrels.”

    Is Scientology the absolute truth, or is it a workable truth?
    Can there be flaws in Scientology?

    You may answer this question here as well.


    • Jay  On October 6, 2012 at 11:22 AM

      If going through a “mine field” in a war zone, I am of the opinion to “follow” in the footsteps of the one who made it through.

      • Chris Thompson  On October 6, 2012 at 10:30 PM

        Hi Jay, Do you feel that the “group think” of the reactive mind is something which when resolved by auditing results in a greater and more individuated individual? And if that is a positive goal of processing, can you help resolve the inconsistency of why individuation is a bad thing, the result of overts and withholds?

        • vinaire  On October 7, 2012 at 7:48 AM

          That is a good question, Chris, and I shall try to answer it.

          I believe that any auditing should help a person become less judgmental and more compassionate in general. Such a person would not be towing some ideology. He should be able to think for himself. But from Tech Dictionary:

          INDIVIDUATION = a separation from knowingness.
          KNOWINGNESS = being certainness; a capability for truth; self-determined knowledge

          TO INDIVIDUATE (Regular English) = to give an individual or distinctive character to

          Hubbard seems to be saying is that it is bad to give knowingness an individual or distinctive character. He seems to believe in standard knowingness across the board. Hubbard wants everyone to agree with the knowingness he has about mind and spirit. So, anybody speaking his own mind on this subject is separating from ‘that knowingness’, and that is bad.

          Now, that is an interesting look straight from the definitions.


      • Chris Thompson  On October 6, 2012 at 11:16 PM

        Hi Jay, “mine field in a war zone” is dramatic, I give you that, but more importantly, from your comment I infer that you mean that Hubbard “rose above the bank” as outlined in KSW.

        Can you help me resolve the apparent inconsistencies regarding Hubbard’s explosive temper, poor health, anxiety, drug use, and blow from Int in 1982 paired off against having “risen above the bank” ?

        • vinaire  On October 7, 2012 at 7:57 AM

          I do not think that Hubbard made it through the “mine field in a war zone”. Evidently he got bogged down. Look at the current state of the Church of Scientology. It is not a product that Hubbard, or any Scientologist, should be proud of. Hubbard got blind-sided because of his own weakness for gold and power. He failed to predict.

          Looking at the current state of Scientology I would say that Hubbard failed to “rise above the bank” permanently. He had his moments of clear thinking. But he definitely came crashing down.

          I do feel bad for poor Hubbard. He didn’t listen to Buddha.


      • vinaire  On October 7, 2012 at 4:53 AM

        Chris, I shall not put burden on Jay for more answers. He has to decide to participate in the discussions first. Until then any posts from Jay, and any references to him shall be moderated. Any further violations of discussion policy related to Jay will be held back from appearing in the comment section.


  • vinaire  On October 30, 2012 at 12:27 PM

    Let me just list some thoughts from a post on Chris Thompson’s Blog::

    (1) The greatest common factor between psychoanalysis and auditing is LOOKING.

    (2) Both direct a person’s attention at certain areas of his case in an attempt to bring relief.

    (3) How these areas of the case are determined is called diagnosis in Psychology and C/Sing in Scientology.

    (4) Psychology approach uses medication to address acute symptoms. Scientology is against psych drugs and it does not address acute symptoms except for recommending a calm environment.

    (5) Both Psychology and Scientology aim at handling unwanted conditions, Scientology also aims to “restore” supernatural abilities that are supposed to be inherent in man.

    (6) Scientology started with Dianetics and the discovery of engrams, which approach, in early fifties, fizzled out within a year or two.

    (7) I find engrams to be very few like low hanging fruits. They are right there and need not be dug up. They are discovered very soon if one lets the mind un-stack itself naturally. The early popularity of Dianetics was based on this fact.

    (8) Once these low hanging fruits were plucked and the appetite was whetted, disappointment set in as no more engrams were found while unwanted conditions remained. This led to more and more digging into the mind (memories).

    (9) On point 8, digging into the mind to look for more engrams was the wrong way to go. Hubbard’s premise that engram is a single source of all aberrations, sounds nice, but unfortunately, that does not add up. Mental structure is more complex than that simple theory.

    (10) What worked best in early Dianetics and in later TR0 was to let the mind un-stack itself naturally. This was never recognized fully by Hubbard. His effort remained always through repetitive Scientology processes to dig into the mind. But all these processes simply got different types of low hanging fruits.

    (11) Not letting the mind un-stack naturally is the error made in psychoanalysis too. But it is right in observing that external help is often needed to address the acute symptoms. Research into medicine is, therefore, important. The challenge is to eliminate detrimental side effects.

  • vinaire  On October 30, 2012 at 12:43 PM

    I am wondering if Scientology auditing has aphrodisiacal effects on the spirit? In other words does it get one into imagining wonderful daydreams of roaming around in the universe?


    • Chris Thompson  On October 30, 2012 at 8:25 PM

      I like that question and have been pondering it ongoing. I have been and I am currently challenging my own memory of past lives, and am preparing a post on “certainty.”

    • vinaire  On October 31, 2012 at 4:17 AM

      To me, this is freeing up one’s ability to visualize. This is a creative ability used by artists, writers, etc. It comes about because one’s attention is no longer introverted or fixed on mundane survival problems.

      But it doesn’t mean that what one is visualizing is the universal truth. It is simply creative imagination by a person. That’s pretty much what it means when one says, “It exists in my universe only.”

      Just call it imagination. What is wrong with that? Why do people in Scientology want to make it sound like some kind of truth?


      • Elizabeth Hamre  On November 18, 2013 at 2:59 AM

        V….”Just call it imagination. What is wrong with that? Why do people in Scientology want to make it sound like some kind of truth?”
        because it is real to those people same as what you know real to you and not always to others.
        We only can talk about what real to us…


  • vinaire  On August 17, 2013 at 2:00 PM

    In his description of Super Power on his blog Dan Koon said:

    “Unfortunately, something else that LRH predicted also happened. He said that if some people in an org were put through the rundowns but others weren’t, then eventually those who hadn’t had the gains would pull down the others who had. And that’s what occurred. It might have taken a few years, but eventually nearly everybody, as I can recall, got into some kind of serious post difficulties. But in this regard, they were no different from everybody else at the Int Base, however, so the fact that LRH’s prediction came true in this regard cannot be taken as a denigration of their initial gains or an invalidation of the potentials of Super Power.”

    To me this is inconsistent that the gains of the people completed on Super Power Rundown are not permanent in that they could be pulled down by others who hadn’t had these gains. Some blockage cleared in the mind permanently does not get restimulated. So, there are shortcomings in the application of this Super Power Rundown.

    When I did the Running Program, I naturally applied mindfulness (a cultural thing for me, being from India), which I now believe is the secret of permanent gain. Though mindfulness was touched upon in Scientology on TR0 and Obnosis, it was never emphasized in auditing. I believe that whenever, Scientology has produced any gains, there has been inadvertant application of mindfulness by the preclear. Most of the errors in Scientology occur (and correction lists are needed) because mindfulness is not emphasised and preclears try to answer questions even when no response has come up in the mind. Thus, wrong questions are run ad nauseum.


  • vinaire  On November 8, 2013 at 6:59 AM

    Education is as much a learning of new facts as it is getting rid of false ideas. Here are some notes on FALSE DATA STRIPPING.

    (1) There is no absolute false data. All false data is relative only.

    (2) Relative false data appears as an inconsistency, where something appears to be not quite right and does not make sense.

    (3) A person may not be aware of an inconsistency when he has nothing to compare it to.

    (4) People can have inconsistencies in their thinking, which appear natural to them.

    Step one is to detect the inconsistency.
    There are always more than one data involved in an inconsistency. However, which datum is false may not always be clear.

    Step two is to detect the false datum.
    It may take a matrix of data to determine a false datum. It will be false relative to not only to one other datum, but also to a majority of surrounding data.

    One may ask,

    “On the subject under discussion, Is there anything

    (1) One couldn’t think with
    (2) Which didn’t seem to add up
    (3) Which seems to be in conflict what one is trying to learn.”

    This may only point to an inconsistency and not necessarily to a false datum. One may then have to look at the various contexts in which that inconsistency seems to appear.

    One may start looking at whatever appears in one’s mind relating to that inconsistency.

    (1) It could be an incident where something happened. One then looks at who was involved, what they were doing, what one was doing, etc.

    (2) It could be a long term experience in an area. One simply lets the mind freely associate in that area with respect to that inconsistency.

    This is continued until the whole context clears up, and the false datum is clearly visible.


    • vinaire  On November 8, 2013 at 10:07 PM

      False Data Stripping is more basic than misunderstood words because the definitions of some words themselves may contain false data, and may not be enough to clear up a confusion.

      • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2013 at 11:34 PM

        False Data Stripping confronts difficult considerations to expose as they are not particularly “charged” being a normal part of one’s makeup of self. What I found that was helpful was to be clear about the Scientology terminology surrounding “computation,” p. 85; and also “service facsimile,” pp 384-385, especially definitions 5 and 6, all from the “Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary. I note these as tools to use as guides to steer to mental areas which may yield inconsistencies and render a satisfying and rewarding experience using the False Data Stripping material. I think it’s good to do in pairs but for the experienced student or auditor can be run solo with equally good results.

      • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 11:23 AM

        COMPUTATION, technically, that aberrated evaluation and postulate that one must be consistently in a certain state in order to succeed. The computation thus may mean that one must entertain in order to be alive or that one must be dignified in order to succeed or that one must own much in order to live. A computation is simply stated. It is always aberrated. A computation is as insidious as it pretends to align with survival. All computations are nonsurvival. Computations are held in place wholly to invalidate others. (AP&A, p. 41)


        We make computations in mathematics. There is nothing wrong with computations. The problem comes when one is not being mindful.

        If one wants to maintain a certain state of mind, or a certain status, constant and not deviate from it, then one should examine that inflexibility. There is never the same solution for every situation. A solution must be derived from the situation. So a fixed solution shall be a suspect.

        What Hubbard seems to be saying is that any fixed solution that one is holding to should be examined under False Data Stripping.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2013 at 1:34 PM

          Vin: We make computations in mathematics. There is nothing wrong with computations.

          Chris: This is not the point of clearing the specialized definitions of “computation” in Scientology. These concepts describe a mental structure. If you don’t like the word computation, no problem, pick another word but the point is to see whether the mental structure described is a useful platen to help exploit inconsistencies.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2013 at 1:40 PM

          Vin: What Hubbard seems to be saying is that any fixed solution that one is holding to should be examined under False Data Stripping.

          Chris: I rather think Hubbard is saying that if one is mystified by the negative result one is getting from a social process or other process because one is adhering to ideas that on there their surface seem perfectly usual and normal, then one could take a look at the possibility that one is operating with a syllogism using a false major premise. False data stripping’s purpose is to expose inconsistencies in one’s major premises. That is how I use it.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2013 at 1:45 PM

          Vin from Tech Dictionary: COMPUTATION, technically, that aberrated evaluation and postulate that one must be consistently in a certain state in order to succeed.

          Chris: The guide and salient point of the definition is the relative success or of failure of one’s evaluations. Using perfectly good and sober logic and yet not obtaining the desired result, one could look for false data contained in their major premises.

      • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 11:33 AM

        SERVICE FACSIMILE, 1. these are called “service facsimiles.” “Service” because they serve him. “Facsimiles” because they are in mental image picture form. They explain his disabilities as well. The facsimile part is actually a self- installed disability that “explains” how he is not responsible for being able to cope. So he is not wrong for not coping. Part of the “package” is to be right by making wrong. The service facsimile is therefore a picture containing an explanation of self condition and also a fixed method of making others wrong. (HCOB 15 Feb 74) 2 . this is actually part of a chain of incidents which the individual uses to invite sympathy or cooperation on the part of the environment. One uses engrams to handle himself and others and the environment after one has himself conceived that he has failed to handle himself, others and the general environment. (AP&A, p. 7) 3 . it is simply a time when you tried to do something and were hurt or failed and got sympathy for it. Then afterwards when you were hurt or failed and wanted an explanation, you used it. And if you didn’t succeed in getting sympathy for it, you used it so hard it became a psychosomatic illness. (HFP, p. 89) 4 . every time you fail, you pick up this facsimile and become sick or sadly noble. It’s your explanation to yourself and the world as to how and why you failed. It once got you sympathy. (HFP, p. 89) 5 . that facsimile which the preclear uses to apologize for his failures. In other words, it is used to make others wrong and procure their cooperation in the survival of the preclear. If the preclear well cannot achieve survival, he attempts an illness or disability as a survival computation. The workability and necessity of the service facsimile is only superficially useful. The service facsimile is an action method of withdrawing from a state of beingness to a state of not beingness and is intended to persuade others to coax the individual back into a state of beingness. (AP&A, p. 43) 6 . that computation generated by the preclear (not the bank) to make self right and others wrong, to dominate or escape domination and enhance own survival and injure that of others. (HCOB 1 Sept 63)


        Service Facsimile seems to be an experience that one is using habitually as a justification for one’s fixed behavior. In this case, the behavior is not being derived from present circumstances.

      • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 11:51 AM

        The Scientology concepts of ‘computation’ and ‘service facsimile’ are being used to detect the inconsistency that one should be starting with in False Data Stripping.

  • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2013 at 1:48 PM

    Vin: Service Facsimile seems to be an experience that one is using habitually as a justification for one’s fixed behavior. In this case, the behavior is not being derived from present circumstances.

    Chris: Correct, and mindfulness is the cure. Service facsimiles and computations as used in these specialized definitions are substitutes for mindfulness. Mindfulness is a big word with big ramifications in one’s environment.

  • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 5:31 PM

    The whole purpose of doing False Data Stripping is to help a person who is not functioning well on a job or in life. He is making blunders and getting bad results. He is not able to estimate his environment correctly.

    The theory is that this person has fase data that distort his perception of the fundamentals of a subject. If that false data is found and eliminated then that person can get the results that he wants in that subject.

    However, false data by no is means absolute. False data for a person may not be false data for another person.

    Only the result would tell.

  • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 6:41 PM

    Hubbard says:

    “Some people are prone to accepting false data. This stems from overts committed prior to the false data being accepted. The false data then acts as a justifier for the overt.

    “An example of this would be a student studying past Mis-Us on a subject, cheating in the exam and eventually dropping the subject entirely. Then someone comes along and tells him that the subject is useless and destructive. Well, he will immediately grab hold of this datum and believe it as he needs something to justify his earlier overts.”


    But the person may commit overts when he has false data. Here we see an inconsistency in Hubbard’s argument. Hubbard seems to be presenting a circular argument.

    Maybe we should keep overts out of this False Data Stripping .


  • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 6:47 PM

    Hubbard uses a punishment-based system. The idea of overts belongs to such a system.

    If the person knows his overts then that is not the problem. The problem are the punishment factors that make him suppress or withhold his data.


    • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 6:49 PM

      Looks like the punishment-based system is part of the society in which Hubbard grew up. It is not a matter of what is considered to be overt and what is not. It is a matter of using punishment in the society instead of removing misunderstanding.


  • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 7:14 PM

    Education is as much a learning of new facts as it is getting rid of false ideas. Here are some notes on FALSE DATA STRIPPING.

    SITUATION: A person is not functioning well on a job or in life. He cannot associate his actions with the drastic results he is getting. He is unable to think with data. He is unable to learn.

    Fundamentals of subjects are not clarified in general. He has accepted data from others without proper examination. He cannot estimate his environment correctly. There are not just misunderstood. He is acting on false data.

    False data is absorbed from cultural media, textbooks and the opinions of authorities. False Data Stripping should be used extensively in all hatting and training activities.


    (1) False data may appear natural to one who believes it to be true.
    (2) Therefore, do not focus not some particular datum, but on an obvious inconsistency.
    (3) An inconsistency exists where something does not make sense.
    (4) One doesn’t know which data is false in the inconsistency.
    (5) The datum is false in a relative sense only.
    (6) The text being used to clear false data may itself be examined for false data.


    Ask the person if there is anything he has run across on the subject under discussion
    (a) which he couldn’t think with,
    (b) which didn’t seem to add up
    (c) which seems to be in conflict with the material one is trying to teach him.

    Handle the inconsistency with elementary Straightwire.


  • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 7:18 PM

    The first step of False Data Stripping is as follows:

    A. Determine whether or not the person needs this procedure by checking the following:

    1. The person cannot be hatted on a subject.

    2. No Crashing Mis-Us can be found on a subject yet it is obvious they exist.

    3. The person is not duplicating the material he has studied as he is incorrectly applying it or only applying part of it, despite Word Clearing.

    4. He is rejecting the material he is reading or the definition of the word he is clearing.

    5. You suspect or the person originates earlier data he has encountered on the materials that could contain false data.

    6. The person talks about or quotes other sources or obviously incorrect sources.

    7. He is glib.

    8. The person is backing off from actually applying the data he is studying despite standard Word Clearing.

    9. He is bogged.

    10. He cannot think with the data and it does not seem to apply.


    • vinaire  On November 10, 2013 at 1:42 PM

      Here my comments on the points above:

      1. I would not like to be hatted as a scam artist like an IAS Reg. So, a lot will depend on the subject one is being hatted on. One may simply have no interest in the subject.

      2. Again, what confirms the validity of a subject? There are no absolute truths or falsehoods. Imposing a certain viewpoint under the guise of False Data Stripping will be tantamount to brainwashing.

      3. The materials themselves can be faulty as in Scientology. The basic assumption in Scientology is that its materials are absolutely correct.

      I think that the remaining points 4 to 10 suffer from the same assumption as pointed out in 3. The bottom line is that one must first find an inconsistency that is real to the person and then help the person discover the underlying false data (assumption).

      I think that false data will always boil down to an unsuspected assumption.


      • Chris Thompson  On November 10, 2013 at 4:57 PM

        Vin: I think that false data will always boil down to an unsuspected assumption.

        Chris: Yes, and if the word “false data” is objectionable or gets in the road of mindful looking by way of an incorrect evaluation, then that can be modified. In this case, we might even unearth inconsistencies in the “How to Win Friends . . .” book though that will not be the purpose of this activity.

  • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 7:31 PM

    I am puzzled by the area of social interaction. What model should I use?

    The inconsistency that I see is people not able to get along with each other. There is intolerance and abuse not only in the society but also on the Internet.

    (1) General interaction is there usually to celebrate an occasion, to have discussions to learn about things, to have fun together, to participate in a group activity to get work done, to have a functioning society, etc.

    (2) On Internet I have had problems on ESMB and on Geir’s Blog in carrying out worthwhile discussions. The discussions I have seen there are not focused on the subject, Instead they get focused on the people who are engaged in discussion.

    (3) It is not that I cannot learn to behave properly in these discussions, I seem to be lacking access to proper materials to hat myself on.

    (4) I shall appreciate if links to such materials are provided to me here.


  • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 7:32 PM

    Let the False Data Stripping begin!


    • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2013 at 11:30 PM

      It seems that you already did get started and are well on your way using this tool. I think that’s great. I will be takinga look at it for myself as well.

  • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 8:03 PM

    Shall we look at the following:



    • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2013 at 11:35 PM

      Six Ways to Make People Like YouBecome genuinely interested in other people.Smile.Remember that a person’s name is, to that person, the sweetest and most important sound in any language.Be a good listener. Encourage others to talk about themselves.Talk in terms of the other person’s interest.Make the other person feel important – and do it sincerely.

  • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 8:54 PM

    According to Dale Carnegie:

    Fundamental Techniques in Handling People
    (1) Don’t criticize, condemn, or complain.
    (2) Give honest and sincere appreciation.
    (3) Arouse in the other person an eager want.

    I don’t think that I go overboard on (1). I do get frustrated with others around me do it incessantly. I am ok on (2). It is (3) that I need hatting on.

  • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 9:04 PM

    According to Dale Carnegie:

    Six Ways to Make People Like You
    1. Become genuinely interested in other people.
    2. Smile.
    3. Remember that a person’s name is, to that person, the sweetest and most important sound in any language.
    4. Be a good listener. Encourage others to talk about themselves.
    5. Talk in terms of the other person’s interest.
    6. Make the other person feel important – and do it sincerely.

    I am OK on (1) to (4). I seem to be weak on (5) as I have strong interests of my own. Point (6) goes out the window when the other person becomes hostile.

%d bloggers like this: