I say 'Dianetics' is basically regressive hypnosis.

[Phineas Fogg]

During the late 60s, I was on the Hubbard Standard Dianetics Course.

I was slow, on that course for 18 months, I remember it costing me $500.

Bill Franks (RIP) was my Course Sup. (For those old timers) if you recall, Franks was ED international and CO of the LA org circa 1980. He got shafted, and told his story on YouTube in a series of interviews. Search on YouTube for Bill Franks Scientology, there are three interviews about an hour long, each, and they are really interesting, lots of back story stuff. Bill was, as I recall, and as he still sounds in the videos, a really cool guy.


Now then, back to the topic. The reason I say Dianetics is basically hypnosis is because I'm thinking of studying hypnosis and getting a hypnotherapist certificate, the course is a year long, and held in Los Angeles, it's a well established and an accredited school.

Well, I sat in on some regressive hypnosis sessions ( where they go back on memories of trauma just like they do in Dianetics ) and I noticed, well, how similar it was to Dianetics. The HSD 'process R3R' isn't a whole lot different than the patter they are using now.

But, what really struck me is how, when I was auditing Dianetics, how people went into a trance, exactly like they do in hypnosis, for the life of me, I'm not seeing a difference.

Thing is, what really seals this conviction for me is that Hubbard was a parlor hypnotist back in the 40s, and it is now clear to me where he got his ideas from.

Recalling trauma in a controlled environment has therapeutic value, and what Scientology does is feed off the coattails of that therapeutic effect from Dianetics, and when people are helped, they assume that ALL of Scientology must be valid, as well. I mean it's a massive con game, and all very clever.

As far as I can tell, I'm not seeing a difference between Dianetics and hypnosis, other than the fact that Dianetic auditors are not qualified as hypnosists, who by their own 'Standard Dianetics' where they are not allowed to vary much from the patter that is given to them form the course data, whereas a hypnotist has more leeway, to use common sense, and there are no arbitrary things like 'meters' and 'meter reads' which, really do not prove anything. Hubbard made lots of assumptions about e meter reads, and what they signify. This idea that the 'end of session' is a 'floating needle' is completely arbitrary. I never actually saw a meter read that matched the specific course description of what they were supposed to be ( the flowing back and forth movement, never really saw that). I did see, however, a wide meandering needle, but on an electrical level, one cannot make any real determinations as to the significance. also, I studied electronics for 2 years in the navy, and in my view, Hubbard's contentions on the emeter are completely arbitrary, giving in to novel ideas Hubbard just couldn't resist such as the high tone arm and meter reads, floating needles, etc. None of that was ever confirmed by a peer review process, and, this idea that Hubbard cannot be challenged, and is 'source' , is as far from science as one could get, and totally into the cult regions. But, try and explain that to a true believer, it would be impossible. I had two sisters (RIP) who were Scientologists since I got into in the mid 60s, and continued in it for 30 years before they passed away.

Take the tone arm, for example. What does the Tone Arm dial on the meter, on an electrical level, measure? Just taking a guess, I would say that it It measures the DC bias level of electrical, current flowing through the body over which the more temporal movements of the needle rides,, which varies, and whether it's over or under 4 on the meter, it's meaningless, If the DC bias level increases, pushing the temporal movements of the needle off the dial, you adjust the tone arm to compensate and bring the needle back on the dial. Hubbard has made complete assumptions about it's significance.

Dianetics is hypnosis of a certain, very narrow, type, i.e., 'regressive hypnosis' and there are now those who specialize in past lives.

That Hubbard and Scientology claims it is not hypnosis, is not really true. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

 

[Deleted member 51]

Good post. !

I also studied a bit of hypnosis and received some to quit smoking from a renowned hypnosis expert psychologist, courtesy of my company at the time.

Yes, I absolutely agree that Dianetics and a number of other repetitive, imagination-based processes are hypnosis, especially when they get into past lives.

The repetition of command and focused limited attention can easily put a person into a light trance and for some, a whole lot deeper. Imaginative scenarios can put a person in deeper still.

 

[Type4_PTS]

That Hubbard and Scientology claims it is not hypnosis, is not really true.

For sure it is not really true, And as you said, Hubbard was a parlor hypnotist himself back in the 40s, so he was certainly aware that it wasn't true.

 

[onceuponatime]

I agree. Dianetics works by putting the PC into a light trance (or deeper, depending on the person).

 

[programmer_guy]

Yes, Hubbard was involved in using hypnosis in his early days.

But I don't believe that hypnotic trance induction techniques are required to produce brain endorphin effects.

(No, I am not defending Hubbard, nor Dianetics, nor Scientology.)

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Yes, Hubbard was involved in using hypnosis in his early days.

But I don't believe that hypnotic trance induction techniques are required to produce brain endorphin effects.

Neither do I and while I'm happy to accept that some (perhaps many) people were hypnotised that does not mean all were ... I made a point of staying in present time while being audited perhaps because I didn't need or want the auditing in the first place. I was happy as I was and just went along with having some (not much) auditing because I had no choice due to wanting to go "clear and OT" (lol!) ... I ended my interest in doing that after I did OT3.

I had the absolute minimum auditing throughout. I had life repair (which I enjoyed). They tried to do the drug r/d and a few other things (inc sec checks!) but gave up in the end and let me move onto the OT levels (I didn't even do the clearing course due to attesting natural clear).

The whole thing is and was an unfunny joke.

 

[Riddick]

During the late 60s, I was on the Hubbard Standard Dianetics Course.

I was slow, on that course for 18 months, I remember it costing me $500.

Bill Franks (RIP) was my Course Sup. (For those old timers) if you recall, Franks was ED international and CO of the LA org circa 1980. He got shafted, and told his story on YouTube in a series of interviews. Search on YouTube for Bill Franks Scientology, there are three interviews about an hour long, each, and they are really interesting, lots of back story stuff. Bill was, as I recall, and as he still sounds in the videos, a really cool guy.


Now then, back to the topic. The reason I say Dianetics is basically hypnosis is because I'm thinking of studying hypnosis and getting a hypnotherapist certificate, the course is a year long, and held in Los Angeles, it's a well established and an accredited school.

Well, I sat in on some regressive hypnosis sessions ( where they go back on memories of trauma just like they do in Dianetics ) and I noticed, well, how similar it was to Dianetics. The HSD 'process R3R' isn't a whole lot different than the patter they are using now.

But, what really struck me is how, when I was auditing Dianetics, how people went into a trance, exactly like they do in hypnosis, for the life of me, I'm not seeing a difference.

Thing is, what really seals this conviction for me is that Hubbard was a parlor hypnotist back in the 40s, and it is now clear to me where he got his ideas from.

Recalling trauma in a controlled environment has therapeutic value, and what Scientology does is feed off the coattails of that therapeutic effect from Dianetics, and when people are helped, they assume that ALL of Scientology must be valid, as well. I mean it's a massive con game, and all very clever.

As far as I can tell, I'm not seeing a difference between Dianetics and hypnosis, other than the fact that Dianetic auditors are not qualified as hypnosists, who by their own 'Standard Dianetics' where they are not allowed to vary much from the patter that is given to them form the course data, whereas a hypnotist has more leeway, to use common sense, and there are no arbitrary things like 'meters' and 'meter reads' which, really do not prove anything. Hubbard made lots of assumptions about e meter reads, and what they signify. This idea that the 'end of session' is a 'floating needle' is completely arbitrary. I never actually saw a meter read that matched the specific course description of what they were supposed to be ( the flowing back and forth movement, never really saw that). I did see, however, a wide meandering needle, but on an electrical level, one cannot make any real determinations as to the significance. also, I studied electronics for 2 years in the navy, and in my view, Hubbard's contentions on the emeter are completely arbitrary, giving in to novel ideas Hubbard just couldn't resist such as the high tone arm and meter reads, floating needles, etc. None of that was ever confirmed by a peer review process, and, this idea that Hubbard cannot be challenged, and is 'source' , is as far from science as one could get, and totally into the cult regions. But, try and explain that to a true believer, it would be impossible. I had two sisters (RIP) who were Scientologists since I got into in the mid 60s, and continued in it for 30 years before they passed away.

Take the tone arm, for example. What does the Tone Arm dial on the meter, on an electrical level, measure? Just taking a guess, I would say that it It measures the DC bias level of electrical, current flowing through the body over which the more temporal movements of the needle rides,, which varies, and whether it's over or under 4 on the meter, it's meaningless, If the DC bias level increases, pushing the temporal movements of the needle off the dial, you adjust the tone arm to compensate and bring the needle back on the dial. Hubbard has made complete assumptions about it's significance.

Dianetics is hypnosis of a certain, very narrow, type, i.e., 'regressive hypnosis' and there are now those who specialize in past lives.

That Hubbard and Scientology claims it is not hypnosis, is not really true. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Hubbard sold lots of his dianetics book from 1950 and forward. Only some of the human population read his book. I don't think it was hypnosis. Percentage wise, out of all those books sold, why did a small percentage of people who bought the book dianetics,

why didn't they continue? Why did some continue?

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Hubbard sold lots of his dianetics book from 1950 and forward. Only some of the human population read his book. I don't think it was hypnosis. Percentage wise, out of all those books sold, why did a small percentage of people who bought the book dianetics,

why didn't they continue? Why did some continue?

I don't think just reading (or trying to read) the book was going to hypnotise anyone, though perhaps the rhetoric was meant to do that, lol ... any actual auditing with its endless repetitive commands was more likely to succeed.



Edit: I was joking about the rhetoric for reasons Riddick will understand.

 

[programmer_guy]

I don't think just reading (or trying to read) the book was going to hypnotise anyone, though perhaps the rhetoric was meant to do that, lol ... any actual auditing with it's endless repetitive commands were more likely to succeed.

The C/S order for the auditor to repeat a particular AESP on the PC will usually/eventually produce a brain stress relief reaction.
No rhetoric is required for that to happen.
But that does not mean that Hubbard's pseudoscience claims in DMSMH are true.

 

[Veda]

Some background and a potpourri of views:


A . E. Van Vogt authored

the Hypnotism Handbook for his friend C.E. Cooke.

Cooke attended the first Dianetics course in Elisabeth, New Jersey in 1950.

Van Vogt eventually became the president of the (very much unauthorized) California Association of Dianetic

Auditors, and held that position until 1981. He was harassed and threatened for years as a "squirrel."

*​

Per R3R, there were the commands, "Start of Session" and "End of Session."

Call it what you will, a person in such a session is not in a normal state of
consciousness.

"And as an aid to psychotherapy."

During the late 60s, I was on the Hubbard Standard Dianetics Course.

I was slow, on that course for 18 months, I remember it costing me $500.

Bill Franks (RIP) was my Course Sup. (For those old timers) if you recall, Franks was ED international and CO of the LA org circa 1980. He got shafted, and told his story on YouTube in a series of interviews. Search on YouTube for Bill Franks Scientology, there are three interviews about an hour long, each, and they are really interesting, lots of back story stuff. Bill was, as I recall, and as he still sounds in the videos, a really cool guy.


Now then, back to the topic. The reason I say Dianetics is basically hypnosis is because I'm thinking of studying hypnosis and getting a hypnotherapist certificate, the course is a year long, and held in Los Angeles, it's a well established and an accredited school.

Well, I sat in on some regressive hypnosis sessions ( where they go back on memories of trauma just like they do in Dianetics ) and I noticed, well, how similar it was to Dianetics. The HSD 'process R3R' isn't a whole lot different than the patter they are using now.

But, what really struck me is how, when I was auditing Dianetics, how people went into a trance, exactly like they do in hypnosis, for the life of me, I'm not seeing a difference.

Thing is, what really seals this conviction for me is that Hubbard was a parlor hypnotist back in the 40s, and it is now clear to me where he got his ideas from.

Recalling trauma in a controlled environment has therapeutic value, and what Scientology does is feed off the coattails of that therapeutic effect from Dianetics, and when people are helped, they assume that ALL of Scientology must be valid, as well. I mean it's a massive con game, and all very clever.

As far as I can tell, I'm not seeing a difference between Dianetics and hypnosis, other than the fact that Dianetic auditors are not qualified as hypnosists, who by their own 'Standard Dianetics' where they are not allowed to vary much from the patter that is given to them form the course data, whereas a hypnotist has more leeway, to use common sense, and there are no arbitrary things like 'meters' and 'meter reads' which, really do not prove anything. Hubbard made lots of assumptions about e meter reads, and what they signify. This idea that the 'end of session' is a 'floating needle' is completely arbitrary. I never actually saw a meter read that matched the specific course description of what they were supposed to be ( the flowing back and forth movement, never really saw that). I did see, however, a wide meandering needle, but on an electrical level, one cannot make any real determinations as to the significance. also, I studied electronics for 2 years in the navy, and in my view, Hubbard's contentions on the emeter are completely arbitrary, giving in to novel ideas Hubbard just couldn't resist such as the high tone arm and meter reads, floating needles, etc. None of that was ever confirmed by a peer review process, and, this idea that Hubbard cannot be challenged, and is 'source' , is as far from science as one could get, and totally into the cult regions. But, try and explain that to a true believer, it would be impossible. I had two sisters (RIP) who were Scientologists since I got into in the mid 60s, and continued in it for 30 years before they passed away.

Take the tone arm, for example. What does the Tone Arm dial on the meter, on an electrical level, measure? Just taking a guess, I would say that it It measures the DC bias level of electrical, current flowing through the body over which the more temporal movements of the needle rides,, which varies, and whether it's over or under 4 on the meter, it's meaningless, If the DC bias level increases, pushing the temporal movements of the needle off the dial, you adjust the tone arm to compensate and bring the needle back on the dial. Hubbard has made complete assumptions about it's significance.

Dianetics is hypnosis of a certain, very narrow, type, i.e., 'regressive hypnosis' and there are now those who specialize in past lives. [Bolding added by Veda]

That Hubbard and Scientology claims it is not hypnosis, is not really true. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

From 1954, an excerpt. Title, at top, added by another.

Regarding the open and serious discussion of reincarnation amongst psychotherapists in 1950, and the problem of openly admitting he consulted earlier lives while giving therapy to others, Jung stated:

"The zeitgeist, the spirit of the times, doesn't allow it."​

 

[I told you I was trouble]

The C/S order for the auditor to repeat a particular AESP on the PC will usually/eventually produce a brain stress relief reaction.
No rhetoric is required for that to happen.
But that does not mean that Hubbard's pseudoscience claims in DMSMH are true.

I was joking about the rhetoric.

 

[marra]

We've had this discussion before and I think the argument breaks down because the word "hypnotism" is too much of a generality.

I must have audited thousands of hours with many different people and I have never felt that at some point in the session I could get the pc to run round the auditing room believing they are a chicken, which I'm sure a hypnotist could do.

That is why it seems to me that there is a difference between hypnotism and auditing. Maybe they are similar subjects but at different points on a gradient scale. But I don't think dianetics and hypnotism are the same thing.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

We've had this discussion before and I think the argument breaks down because the word "hypnotism" is too much of a generality.

I must have audited thousands of hours with many different people and I have never felt that at some point in the session I could get the pc to run round the auditing room believing they are a chicken, which I'm sure a hypnotist could do.

That is why it seems to me that there is a difference between hypnotism and auditing. Maybe they are similar subjects but at different points on a gradient scale. But I don't think dianetics and hypnotism are the same thing.

I'd have done that for you if you had just asked nicely to try and relieve the boredom for us both ... I may even have made that clucking noise they make if I was in a good mood.

 

[Phineas Fogg]

Neither do I and while I'm happy to accept that some (perhaps many) people were hypnotised that does not mean all were ... I made a point of staying in present time while being audited perhaps because I didn't need or want the auditing in the first place. I was happy as I was and just went along with having some (not much) auditing because I had no choice due to wanting to go "clear and OT" (lol!) ... I ended my interest in doing that after I did OT3.

I had the absolute minimum auditing throughout. I had life repair (which I enjoyed). They tried to do the drug r/d and a few other things (inc sec checks!) but gave up in the end and let me move onto the OT levels (I didn't even do the clearing course due to attesting natural clear).

The whole thing is and was an unfunny joke.

Same is true in hypnosis, not everyone can be hypnotised, nor did everyone in my Dianetic sessions go into a hypnotic trance, but some definitely did. You know it when they go deep into their recall, and respond totally to your commands, that only happens when one is in a hypnotic state, I've seen it both in dianetics and hypnosis, and the other, they are identical, and when they are not hypnotized, particularly, and are tip toeing through their memories in present time, I see those too. That's the point, both are verisimilar.

 

[Phineas Fogg]

Some background and a potpourri of views:


A . E. Van Vogt authored

the Hypnotism Handbook for his friend C.E. Cooke.

Cooke attended the first Dianetics course in Elisabeth, New Jersey in 1950.

Van Vogt eventually became the president of the (very much unauthorized) California Association of Dianetic

Auditors, and held that position until 1981. He was harassed and threatened for years as a "squirrel."

*​

Per R3R, there were the commands, "Start of Session" and "End of Session."

Call it what you will, a person in such a session is not in a normal state of
consciousness.

"And as an aid to psychotherapy."





From 1954, an excerpt. Title, at top, added by another.

Regarding the open and serious discussion of reincarnation amongst psychotherapists in 1950, and the problem of openly admitting he consulted earlier lives while giving therapy to others, Jung stated:

"The zeitgeist, the spirit of the times, doesn't allow it."​

Very interesting, seem I'm on the right track in my thinking about this and Dianetics.

 

[Veda]

I'd have done that for you if you had just asked nicely to try and relieve the boredom for us both ... I may even have made that clucking noise they make if I was in a good mood.

We've had this discussion before and I think the argument breaks down because the word "hypnotism" is too much of a generality.

Whenever the word "hypnotism" is used, the discussion stalls when different meanings of the words "hypnotism" are used, often without these meanings being stated.

For example, I would define hypnosis as placing in suspension, or deactivating, the (watchful, discriminating, sometimes "noisy") conscious mind and allowing access to the unconscious mind, either to retrieve some content from the unconscious mind, or to insert some content into the unconscious mind. There are, of course, degrees of this suspension or deactivation.

Yet the word is also used with other variations of meaning, by some at times. An informal use of the term might be when a guy meets a girl, and is enchanted by her, and says, "She has me hypnotized."

A comparable example would be the problem with the word "brainwashing." There are different definitions for the word.

When George Romney, during the 1968 presidential campaign's primaries, visited Vietnam, and later complained that he had been "brainwashed by the generals" he meant that he had been deceived and manipulated by the generals. This, in contrast to the better known "brainwashing" of Red Chinese/North Korean "thought reform."

Scientology Inc. sought (and seeks) to deceive and confuse on both the topics of "hypnotism" and "brainwashing." With regard to (the slang term) "brainwashing," Hubbard, inadvertently, made it easy to side-step these attempts to deceive and confuse by providing his own definition: "Asserting and maintaining dominion over thoughts and loyalties," and added, "through mental healing."

A booklet with this definition for "brainwashing" on its cover was spotted, as early as the mid 1960s, as the "blueprint" for Hubbard's Scientology movement. Apparently, Hubbard knew what he was primarily doing.

However, there were many secondary actions that were not, by themselves, "brainwashing," just as there are actions in Scientology that are not, by themselves, "hypnosis," by any reasonable meaning of the word.

So people argue.

Then there is self hypnosis, done by a person on himself. For example, Hubbard, in his 1946/1947 Affirmations, which were confirmed in court as both Hubbard's and hypnosis, were done while Hubbard was asleep by way of natural sleep or by drugging, with the aid of a sound recorder playing back, to a sleeping/drugged Hubbard, commands such as:

"Your psychology is advanced and true and wonderful. It hypnotizes people. It predicts their emotions, for you are their ruler."

​

The adjective "hypnotic" is also used, often informally, and most people have a pretty good idea what that means.

For example, when, in 1978, Hubbard decided to downgrade the meaning of the word "Clear," almost overnight and with little explanation, other than he had just noticed that there were lots and lots of (somehow) previously unrecognized "Clears," Scientologists, en masse, were electrified with excitement, and instantly agreed.

Years later, David Mayo, who had been living with Hubbard at the time, and had been his assistant and personal auditor, wrote that it had been "PR and marketing considerations that led Hubbard to decide that certain people were 'Clear' at a certain point."

Observing the behavior of Scientologists during this period made it difficult for me to continue to ignore the hypnotic power that Hubbard had over his followers.

Back to the word used as a noun:

Phineas Fogg, in the opening post, describes what he means by "hypnosis":

"Dianetics is hypnosis of a certain, very narrow, type, i.e., 'regressive hypnosis' and there are now those who specialize in past lives."

I must have audited thousands of hours with many different people and I have never felt that at some point in the session I could get the pc to run round the auditing room believing they are a chicken, which I'm sure a hypnotist could do.

Well, the hypnotist was (the remote) Hubbard, through his materials, and you, and others, were the (innocent) go between.

(Hubbard massively evaluated but, per the Auditor's Code, auditors were told not to evaluate in session. And, of course, Case Supervisors also evaluated in accordance with Hubbard's pervasive evaluations.)

Were you there during the Dianetic Clear frenzy, or perhaps during any of Hubbard's other "discoveries" which, almost instantaneously, were greeted with excited agreement by Scientologists?

That is why it seems to me that there is a difference between hypnotism and auditing. Maybe they are similar subjects but at different points on a gradient scale. But I don't think dianetics and hypnotism are the same thing.

Thoughtful people can disagree on this.

There are many types of auditing, and auditing situations, other than (1950) Book One Dianetics, or (1963) Dianetic incident running, or 1969 Standard Dianetics R3R, or (with bells & whistles added) 1978 New Era Dianetics R3R.

These can be done inside a Scientology org, upon an indoctrinated ("hatted") Scientologist, or outside a Scientology organization upon a non-indoctrinated non-Scientologist.

Usually, people receiving auditing, are inside the Scientology environment, and have received some Scientology "education," which Scientology itself calls "indoctrination" and also training.

Yet, I know from first hand experience, that auditing can occur outside, on a non Scientologist, and also outside on someone who has been alerted as to Scientology's devious and tricky (and sometimes crazy ) aspects, yet is still curious to experience at least some of Scientology's many processes.

Back to the specific topic: A shared understanding of the meaning of the word "hypnosis" would be helpful.

 

[Riddick]

Never once in a auditing session, whether it be dianetics or scientology auditing, is a person subject to be hypnotized. A person is asked a question to answer and yes repeatively. But never once in a auditing session is a person told to become a clear or become a OT or become a dianeticists or become a scientologist. Never once.

The whole purpose of the auditing was to have a cognition or win.

But prior, is the rhetoric to go clear, to become a scientologists, to go OT, by reading books, listening to lectures, etc. And after auditing provided one has had cognitions, or wins, more rhetoric to continue up the Bridge to Total Freedom by reading more rhetoric books, lectures, etc.

If one didn't have wins or cognitions, they were first tried to be handled with PTS tech, if that didn't work, one was a SP and booted out. And then later on Hubbard said we have SP Rundown (LOL).

If you like what I said just hit the the subscriber button below. LOL

As Hubbard said The Work Was Free, SO KEEP IT SO. LOL

Sorry, I just had to add the You Tube people getting subscriber's.

 

[Veda]

Never once in a auditing session, whether it be dianetics or scientology auditing, is a person subject to be hypnotized. A person is asked a question to answer and yes repeatively. But never once in a auditing session is a person told to become a clear or become a OT or become a dianeticists or become a scientologist. Never once.

The whole purpose of the auditing was to have a cognition or win.

But prior, is the rhetoric to go clear, to become a scientologists, to go OT, by reading books, listening to lectures, etc. And after auditing provided one has had cognitions, or wins, more rhetoric to continue up the Bridge to Total Freedom by reading more rhetoric books, lectures, etc.

If one didn't have wins or cognitions, they were first tried to be handled with PTS tech, if that didn't work, one was a SP and booted out. And then later on Hubbard said we have SP Rundown (LOL).

There are some excerpts from Van Vogt's Hypnotism Handbook that might interest you.

What is your definition of the word "hypnosis"?

 

[Riddick]

There are some excerpts from Van Vogt's Hypnotism Handbook that might interest you.

What is your definition of the word "hypnosis"?

my definition of the word would be getting agreement. But that doesn't happen in a auditing session as I explained.

 

[Karakorum]

, I studied electronics for 2 years in the navy, and in my view, Hubbard's contentions on the emeter are completely arbitrary, giving in to novel ideas Hubbard just couldn't resist such as the high tone arm and meter reads, floating needles, etc. None of that was ever confirmed by a peer review process, and, this idea that Hubbard cannot be challenged, and is 'source' , is as far from science as one could get, and totally into the cult regions.

The emeter is a very 'dumb' tool. You can do all sorts of purely somatic actions to make it read. Bite your tongue - it will read. Move your big toe around in your shoe - it will read. There's all sorts of shenanigans to be had with it if you want to get a certain result or just annoy the auditor.

I ran interrogations on the meter all the darn time. The only thing it was good for is that it could act as a very general anxiety indicator. One will never complete an investigation correctly if one would just take the meter readings and treat them at face value like Hubbard said you should.

Everyone at inv and even every mildly experienced ethics office knows that Hubbard was talking out of his arse when he claimed the meter is infallible. Thing is - everyone was too afraid to voice that out loud. So everyone played the "we pretend the meter works!" game and the people above us knew it too and also played that same make-believe game.

The emperor's new clothes 101.