FDA To Take Another Look at Scientology's E-Meter

[Mark A. Baker]

... The B/S about the PC's data being senior to the meter read? Maybe this is honored by some independents, but in the Church, this is total PR. ...

You came late to the party. It was waaaaaaay better earlier.

I arrived late too, but there was still fun to be had even as I was leaving.

Now all they have are the hangovers, the liquor bills, and the puke all over everything.




Mark A. Baker

[uniquemand]

Take the meter away and try doing a correction list, try finding an item, try doing date locate.

The session IScontrolled by the meter. What the auditor indicates to the PC is controlled by the meter reaction. It Doessomething!!

Take the meter away, and you are not likely to have any wrong indications and wrong items to correct.

"Two-way comm" and "earlier similar" can accomplish the same feats without any need for a meter, and without causing an upset about auditor certainty on some item just because the meter burped

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

Take the meter away, and you are not likely to have any wrong indications and wrong items to correct.

"Two-way comm" and "earlier similar" can accomplish the same feats without any need for a meter, and without causing an upset about auditor certainty on some item just because the meter burped

That probably would be of interest if the goal of Scientology was anything other than to create batshit crazy Scientologists to serve Ron's Cult

http://forums.whyweprotest.net/threa...iverses.48995/

Believing the emeter is doing more than measuring galvanic skin response is an essential component of the mind fuck. It's important to believe the emeter is a Miss Cleo in a Box, or the mind control isn't as effective.

[Mark A. Baker]

Take the meter away, and you are not likely to have any wrong indications and wrong items to correct.

Not true, U. The vast majority of wrong indications are attributable to pig-headedness on the part of the auditor/cs/senior exec who ordered whatever.

The meter is comparatively 'innocent'.

Clearing up meter reads is a simple matter of 2wc by an auditor about an apparent read. Clearing up 'added inapplicable evaluations' introduced by the auditing team can be a great deal more complicated.


Mark A. Baker

[uniquemand]

Not true, U. The vast majority of wrong indications are attributable to pig-headedness on the part of the auditor/cs/senior exec who ordered whatever.

The meter is comparatively 'innocent'.

Clearing up meter reads is a simple matter of 2wc by an auditor about an apparent read. Clearing up 'added inapplicable evaluations' introduced by the auditing team can be a great deal more complicated.


Mark A. Baker

The meter is an added, unnecessary variable. It's that simple. You don't need it. Introversion of attention is the only indicator you ever need. If a person is actually trying to avoid facing "their case", all the meter does is cause a test of wills, with the goal of breaking the person who doesn't want to or is not ready to disclose something. In circumstances where coercion and manipulation are the order of the day (say, in Scientology organizations), the meter is a bludgeon to perfectly healthy resistance. The use of "upper indoc TRs", in addition to "missed withhold of nothing", or worse, "wrong indication" is straight up cult indoctrination. It's removing control of a person's will, should they cave in, piece by piece. It's removing control over their body, it's intrusive, penetrating questions asked over protracted periods of time with the sole intention of breaking down the person's resistance. It is a complete perversion of rapport and trust, leading to broken-willed RonBots who "went backtrack", or "whole track" because it was the only way out of the session. It's manic creation of "wins" to avoid further scrutiny.

It's one thing to ask a person to confront something that they wish to confront, with assistance to keep them at it, and a completely different thing to bypass controls and filters and try to force someone to look at something they currently cannot confront, or don't want to disclose.

It is beneficial to look at the truth, but forcing them to do so defeats any valid therapeutic purpose. It doesn't empower them, it subjugates them. You build up a person's ability and willingness to look, and they will do so when they are good and ready. There is simply no shortcut. And if a person doesn't want to talk about something, even though they know it might benefit them at some time to do so, respecting their control over their own disclosures empowers their own decision-making. Of course, if a person does want help opening up about something, then you would keep asking questions, but to do so when they are not ready is a form of rape, IMO. All that can be caused by it is distortion, psychic pain, confusion and domination of their will. I consider it a form of torture.

It's a shame, because GSRs can provide helpful information. If the PR about believing the PC data and the meter just being an adjunct perceptual channel were true, then I wouldn't have a problem with their use. However, it's not true and anyone who has ever been in a grind with an "auditor" about disclosing a withhold, or been pressured by an auditor's "steering" into something that they didn't feel was real, or didn't feel comfortable confronting for any reason, knows this. Any auditor doing this to a person who isn't uncomfortable with it, I question their sanity. The result is a Lisa McPherson situation. The result is paranoia, false memory syndrome, powermad "OTs" who cannot control their own temper, pretending to knowledge they don't have, believing in delusional powers they cannot demonstrate, and behaving like savages with each other. GSRs are interesting tools, but Scientology puts them to the same use they put every other tool. "Make money. Make more money. Make others make more money." And give it all to good ol' Ronnie and his merry ship of fools.

[Mark A. Baker]

The meter is an added, unnecessary variable. ...

There are occasions when it may be a useful supplemental tool. It is never an excuse for not paying attention to the pc.


Mark A. Baker

[Thrak]

I think what happens a lot in regards to scn is that the truth lies somewhere in between the extremes. In regards to the e-meter one extreme says it's a cheap, primitive, lie detector that reacts to palm sweat. The other extreme is that it's a highly precise, religious artifact that can free a being for eternity. Both are wrong but the first is a lot closer.

If you spend any amount of time with an e-meter you will see it behaves in a way that could not possibly be described by hand sweat - unless someone can prove to me that sweat glands can actually suck sweat back in. There are just to many bizarre little movements and patterns that occur.

What these movements mean is anybody's guess. Scn pretends to know - they are full of shit. God only knows what causes the needle to do what it does. It may be helpful in a therapeutic situation, it may be harmful.

I think the important point though is that the "church" does offer auditing as a cure all even though they won't use the term cure. All you have to do is read dianetics and see how many claims elron makes about curing things - and this IS a book they still endorse and do so heavily. This is FRAUD.

Many people have spent untold thousands trying to fix a mental or physical problem because of the lies elron told. I don't think e-meters should be wiped off the planet but I do think people who make false claims should be put out of business and if this is another way to make life difficult for these assholes then Go Sparrow!

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

There is no doubt that a person's skin conductivity can change from emotion induced stress, but there is also no doubt that a person's skin conductivity may not change due to emotion induced stress. If an galvanic skin response meter was a reliable means of consistently measuring emotion and only emotion there would be no need for the subject's metabolism to be in a proper state for an emeter to read as expected.

It's obvious that various factors are at play when it comes to measuring galvanic skin response one of which happens to be emotion. This is why the results of instruments which read galvanic skin response are not considered a reliable means of lie detection and thus not admissible in a court of law.

Does a galvanic skin response meter measure emotional response? ... In most cases it does.

Can anyone actually determine what this emotional response actually means? ... perhaps

If a person responses emotionally to being asked if they played Golf with Xenu on the planet Coltus 75 million years ago, does it mean they were once Xenu's golf partner? ... not a fucking chance.

[uniquemand]

duplicate

[uniquemand]

Luckily, a session is not a court of law.

The goal is not to convict a person based on the validity of their testimony in session. Instead, the goal is to find areas of distress that the person is interested in discussing, and then help them alleviate connected symptoms of stress, trace them back to an origin, where possible, and eliminate the response and conditioning that can lead to future stress.

I don't object to this sort of use outside of a coercive environment (like that created by Scientology).