false data stripping

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by robot123, Sep 18, 2008.

View Users: View Users
  1. robot123

    robot123 Banned

    False datum one has is audited out with false data strippng. All false datum wich can be audited out is a Consideration , for example false datum could be when it was believed the world is flat? My question is how can one audit the false datum with false data stripping if the person thinks its true
  2. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    You simply audit whatever comes up (I think)... otherwise it would be evaluation on part of the auditor.

  3. Carmel

    Carmel Crusader

    Ya can't, and per the tech on it, you're not meant to. FDSing was "supposed" to be for the individual receiving it, and based on his reality. Nothing to do with what actually is, or what something else may think it should be. Just about what the individual couldn't "think with", and a series of steps to help the person straighten out stuff himself.
  4. EP - Ethics Particle

    EP - Ethics Particle Gold Meritorious Patron

    Much ado about nothing...

    By convincing the other person (PC) that they wrong and some other piece of BS is right - actually, by coaxing the person to make self wrong is perhaps a better way to say it, IMHO.

    Anyone else have response?


    What! Two threads going here - bad deal!
  5. cinamingrl

    cinamingrl Banned


    I'm just going to write what I already wrote.....False data stripping is just a fancy word for brainwashing? It's as simple as that. More brainwashing techniques. It's only a way to get rid of any ideas and data that you've learned in the past, before. So that you lose any ideas about leaving or dissenting.

    I had a lot of what they'd call "false" data. And I used it.

    Anything that isn't scientology data is false....in the cult's world. Even believing that humans need a safe place to live, food to eat, peace and quiet, sanity, privacy and even an education.....is "false data" to this cult. :no:
  6. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    The subject is addressed with questions like "Is there anything in the subject of ____ that you couldn't think with?" If one of these "reads" (FDSing is often done off the meter), then it is pursued with further questions. If there has never been any trouble with the topic under discussion, the guy has never questioned anything in it, nothing seemed out of place or conflicted with anything, then it wouldn't "read"--it's only the conflicts, or protests etc. that cause it to "read".

    In the flat-earth case where nothing has happened to the guy (by his perception) to make the idea appear untenable or conflicting, then he won't find any false data by FDSing. If there have been conflicts, then he might.

    Try my FDSing robot if you want to see how it works. It's free. http://www.paulsrobot.com/FDSen

  7. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    I'll recommend Paul's Robot auditor.

  8. Feral

    Feral Rogue male

    The thing about FDSing is that the student always looks away from the LRH tech that he is having trouble with to find the 'false data'. People are pretty cooperative and non confrontational, under normal circumstances.

    I have seen FDSing given to clear the way on gaining compliance to insane RTC orders, orders that subsequently emptied the course rooms at AOSH ANZO. I saw the person comply by finding "false data' previously acquired. She was handling me on the subject and telling me about how 'she got it now'!.

    I had a similar experience myself, I was FDSed for disagreeing with an out tech interpretation of the MWH tech at flag. I did the same thing, I obliged by looking to my past to find some false data that was inhibiting my compliance with the C/S whose instructions were at odds with the HCOBs on the subject.

    Maybe don't call it 'false data stripping' Call it 'opposing data stripping'. It is a more accurate name I think.
  9. FlunkedForLaughing

    FlunkedForLaughing Patron with Honors

    I only tried it once. I had a bad time with it. I gave it to someone else, and it didn't go well for them either. We never got things sorted out. I saw someone give it to someone else, and they came up with some crazy cognition that I knew was not true. All these examples were done in a course room, where we all studied the FDS reference as part of the course materials.

    The problem I have with it is this - you have this datum that you want to prove correct. Then you go looking for anything contrary or opposing or counter to it. When you find it, you do mental mumbo jumbo to invalidate it, so you are left with the original thought which now has no counter data. It doesn't necessarily strip out false data, and you are not necessarily left with true data.

    One problem I immediately saw was the fact that the person themselves is coming up with the false data and the true data. It's very possible that they are missing data that would help solve the problem.

    For example, when I observed 2 other people doing it, one girl was getting false data stripped on why she was overweight. She was going through the FSDing, and she had this big cognition that the reason she was fat was because she ate food after 7:00 pm, and if she did not eat after 7:00pm she wouldn't be fat. I almost laughed out loud in the course room. She never mentioned anything about exercise or nutrition or what foods she ate during the day before 7:00pm. She didn't have true data about health and fitness, but at the end of the FDSing, she had a huge "win" with "VGI's" and now didn't have "false data".

  10. gomorrhan

    gomorrhan Gold Meritorious Patron

    God only knows why people use false data stripping (or any auditing) to arrive at what they think will be the truth.

    It really demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what auditing does: it removes charge (repressed, unfulfilled intention [metapsychology definition]). It doesn't have a person arrive at truth. This is one of the primary falsehoods of scientology, IMO, that "first consideration" is truth. It ain't, it's just the first consideration a person has about something. This probably stems from another false datum (another key false datum), which is that the "being" has declined from a godlike, never-wrong state. I believe the "being" starts as a "tabula rasa": it has no data, although it has instincts which provide emotion due to genetic programming. Acquisition of a datum doesn't ensure that datum is TRUE, or even accurate. Removal of falsehood doesn't generate truth, it simply makes it POSSIBLE to perceive accurately.

    In your example, the person may have removed one or more falsehoods (or might just have wanted to get the fluck out of there), but then apparently came up with some other false perception, and this was taken as an endpoint. Perhaps it WAS and endpoint, for that session, but it seems that she may not have arrived at a true datum. This doesn't surprise me, it actually gibes well with my theory that in scientology, and in other derivatives, people quite often remove one layer of delusion about reality, and think that was the only delusory layer, and that their new attitudes and "data" are accurate and correct, when it is quite likely that they have quite a bit more work to do.

    That's why I agreed with Pilot concerning redoing the grades over and over, wherever charge (interest) lay. BTW, Gerbode agrees with this (or did in his book, where he said that several passes through the metapsychology curriculum may be necessary or desirable before tackling core identity issues), and wrote his book in 1988, about 8-10 years before Ken was writing.
  11. nexus100

    nexus100 Gold Meritorious Patron

    I've never done FDSing, but the main problem with all auditing in my opinion is the necessity of the PC to adopt an identity to deal with the session. That puts a layer over the entire process and will crash anyone at some point.
    FDSing might work with a very strong identity-see Paul-but most people will just create another identity to adopt whatever data seems to solve the problem. And the immediate problem is the FDSing process itself!

    If one is going to FDS, I agree with Vin, do it on your own with Paul's robot auditor or simply read up on the subject.
  12. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    These days I seem to fix myself just by some simple looking. It is getting easier and easier.

    As a word clearer I used to learn a lot from word clearing others. Similarly, I could do false data stripping on myself easily.

    The same is now happening these days while using Idenics.

  13. Carmel

    Carmel Crusader

    Understand where you are coming from. But true, good old FDSing (from an auditor who was doing it for the "pc" -rather than for the org, or for those with some "whatever" agenda) - was a very fine thing!
  14. Supra

    Supra Patron

    for the pc

    I have had fabulous wins with FDSing. But I wouldn't take on some idea just because someone else urged it.

    I was willing to look and inspect in a new unit of time. If I spotted some bullshit, great. If not, I just let it be.

    I got "hit" by most of the techies in the AO when I didn't "take on" the new F/N definition. I was word cleared and FDSed, but my concept stayed the same.

    I would repeat "what's true for you, is true for you".

    Love Supra. :)
  15. gomorrhan

    gomorrhan Gold Meritorious Patron

    New definition of F/N?

    It's not a slow, steady sway back and forth?
  16. robot123

    robot123 Banned

    "Ya can't, and per the tech on it, you're not meant to. FDSing was "supposed" to be for the individual receiving it, and based on his reality. Nothing to do with what actually is, or what something else may think it should be. Just about what the individual couldn't "think with", and a series of steps to help the person straighten out stuff himself."

    what are you saying, it specifically states that false data stripping is supposed to be AUDITED out? what do you mean your not supposed to.
  17. Carmel

    Carmel Crusader


    Are you serious with this question, or are you just having a dig at what they've done? (never know with some of you dudes :eyeroll: )
  18. gomorrhan

    gomorrhan Gold Meritorious Patron

    I didn't know there was a new definition of F/N. I left the Church completely in 1995, although I hadn't really done much with them since 1991.
  19. Carmel

    Carmel Crusader

    Sorry. Was somewhat tired when I wrote this (as I am now), and I wasn't clear. My point is, that FDSing should only be FOR the person receiving it AND only about things/data that he or she finds confusing or can't think with. Org staff/seniors should never have ever started using it, to get one to change their mind on something - but they did! Totally fucked mis-use of this "tech" that can do wonders for an individual, if applied to an individual for his or her sake, rather than for the damn org's sake, to get someone to change their mind. See Pauls blurb below. He explains well.

    Last edited: Sep 19, 2008
  20. Carmel

    Carmel Crusader


    After GAT, DM gave and enforced a new def of F/N (96/97).

    An F/N was simply a rythmic sweep of the dial. Sometimes fleeting! Sweep not sweeps! DM put in arbitrary (after GAT), re F/N having to sweep three times (like persistant F/N). Arbitrary! If applied, auditing would fuck up no end - and it did! That arbitrary violated so many basics of auditing, that it wasn't funny! Ya could write a book on why that defintion of an F/N would kill auditing!

    People bought it , all over the place. And, they started applying it. An F/N, CAN be a steady sway back and forth - but it doesn't HAVE to be, to call it. DM said it did! He truly fucked it, with this one arbitrary!