ESMB is now closed to new registrations. Please go to and register there.


Out-Int — Fact or Fiction?

Discussion in 'Scientology Technology' started by Dulloldfart, Jul 13, 2010.

View Users: View Users
  1. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire


    That dreaded phrase, one of Hubbard's curses he inflicted on his flock (inflockted?). Since it took a (rarely available) Grad V or Class VI auditor to "fix" it, it was often the kiss of death to staff members who wanted some auditing action but were denied it because "they were out-int."

    I think almost all of the trouble was of the self-fulfilling-prophesy kind. Hubbard invented the problem, some internal enemy to hamstring people with that only his wonderful tech could vanquish. It seems to be on a parallel with the external enemies like the Marcabian Between-Lives Implanters and Xenu.

    The "theory" of it, as Hubbard wrote, or at least Clearbird's statement of what Hubbard wrote, is here: This is all about exteriorization and interiorization, a very shaky theoretical foundation anyway.

    I think it is an invented problem, a "solution" that itself became a huge problem instead. But I have heard of people saying how they suffered from awful headaches their whole life, starting way before Scn, and then after an Int RD they never had a headache again. So it is not clearcut.

    Any comments?

    Last edited: Jul 13, 2010
  2. slimjim

    slimjim Patron with Honors

    Placebo effect. Someone believes something is going to help and it does.

    Perhaps it's even why auditing worked on some people.
  3. slimjim

    slimjim Patron with Honors

    Oh, and remember "out-list"???? I think that prolly falls into same category either way (the "horrendous BPC an outlist can generate..... blah blah) and lo and behold, get the right item and it's solved.
  4. minnie

    minnie Patron with Honors

    I think the invention of 'out-int' was amongst other things an attempt by Ron to get around one's natural inclination to want to escape from an oppressive atmosphere such as a totalitarian cult. I recall him referring to people wanting to blow staff etc as possibly being out-int. I imagine alot of staff at one time or another wondered if their feeling of wanting to blow stemmed from 'case' such as this. Had they instead relied on their own observations they may have left sooner.

    It was also one of the first terms I was impressed to learn about as it sounded so 'scientific' :eyeroll::unsure:

    A thought I used to have about it also was that it acted to discourage individual experimentation with exteriorisation. I thought that was quite odd and also somewhat condescending.
  5. GoNuclear

    GoNuclear Gold Meritorious Patron

    Yup, I was hit with that one

    I remember numerous times being asked on a list of questions "Is your int out?" or words to that effect. Sometimes it would read. My question was always "WTF is an int???" And then I would be asked to read a definition, in session. Then I would ask "How could an int be out if I didn't even know WTF it was and/or never had the run down?" To which the answer would always be "I can't evaluate for you!" or some similar horseshit. Eventually it would be "Your needle is floating, end of session" and I would walk away baffled and feeling ripped off, feeling as if I spent my auditing session talking to someone from another planet who was not speaking the same language. Of course, I would relax enough to get past the examiner, heaven for-fucking-bid that I would have to deal with a bad exam and all of the horseshit that would go with that.

  6. Panda Termint

    Panda Termint Cabal Of One

    "Words to that effect" would be right, no Auditor or Correction List asks about Out Int in that way.
    Many people read on Out Int? simply because they don't understand what the question means.

    In answer to Paul's original question; my opinion is "both". Sometimes it's actual sometimes it's imagined.

    I have known many Staff Members who were very glad to have Out Int? reading, it obviated Sec-Checking.

    On the other hand I have delivered numerous Int RDs to, what the PCs considered, life-changing results. Go figure.

    IMO, it's as real a condition as any scientology-based condition.
    Some would probably call it a scientology-installed condition or phobia (you don't hear too many people in everyday life saying they have Out Int but you sure do hear them saying the Int Buttons).
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2010
  7. KissMyStats

    KissMyStats Patron with Honors

    I agree with Slimjim. Believing is something is very powerful. I had several End of Endless Int Rundowns over the years and I still suffer from headaches.
  8. I had three int rundowns. I had one, then about a year later I had a corrected one.

    Then about 10 years later I had an "End of endless Int rundown" rundown.

    Rundown is the right word for that's how it made me feel.

    I think that by that time a person has bought into so much of the mindset that even a headache can be made into a "case phenomenon."

    And a suggestion like that made to a person in an enviroment like that will most likely stick and be considered real to the person.

    The Anabaptist Jacques
  9. Arthur Dent

    Arthur Dent Silver Meritorious Patron

    Ditto. Been on both ends of this and had successes. Most problems come from not understanding the terms, which while someone is "suffering" from this, are a little tricky to get understood.

    The label is scientologese but the condition/symptoms exist. Scn. makes one think no one know of a condition or symptoms until Hubbard "labeled" such. (Gee and then we were so critical of the psych's labeling...ummm.)

    For this one, the "remedy" is really quite simple but it is a very convoluted piece of tech for a pc to understand, particularly if it is a valid condition for the person at the time and they are already uncomfortable.

    Some "symptoms" may be akin to how you feel after you read several pages about being buried alive or the way you feel when you can't leave someplace or are waiting for someone for a very long time and can't leave. LOL. Actually, this was one of my favorite pieces of the tech, back when I had any inclination to favor it at all. I have seen it mis-handled to the extreme many times.
  10. Ted

    Ted Gold Meritorious Patron

    Hubbard presented a weird idea of thetan exterior. His explanation was bizarre, more like that of a ghost exterior to the body though connected, and yet interior to the physical universe.

    Brain researcher Jill Bolte Taylor studied her own stroke as it happened. I find many of her perceptions during the event similar to or same as my personal experiences with "exteriorization" and those of people I have audited. Disassociation is another word that comes to mind to describe the experience. At this point, I am not certain if I can say that exteriorization is an actual experience, not like hubbard described, or a brain fart, or both. Favoring a Zen attitude, I tend to think it is both actual and a brain fart.

    Int/ext was developed as a remedy to the problem of auditing a pc who has gone exterior in session who is now restimulated by the session environment. Note that the perceived need to get a TA in normal range, to get the pc back in session on the planned program makes such a rundown necessary. In other words, the int rundown, for many pc's, is the solution to a problem that then became the new problem.

    Has the int/ext r/d been helpful to some? Yes. Chronic headaches blown, etc. Has it been harmful? Yes, hence the need for repair on repair on repair and origination of the end of endless int r/d to get a pc gently moved away from a concern over int, a concern he most likely did not have until Hubbard, the C/S and auditor gave it to him. And then there's the pc who gets done with the r/d left going, "WTF?" This I think accounts for 50% of the people who had the rundown.

    There's more to say on this. Will leave it for another time. Maybe after morning coffee.
  11. Div6

    Div6 Crusader

    Out-Int is a very real condition (imo), and one which is flubbed in handling consistently. Part of the problem is that people invalidate themselves on "being exterior", as if it was some mysterious thing.

    Then as Paul mentioned, to get it "handled" you need the rarest of breeds of the meantime you cant get any other kind of auditing until it is "handled". And even then, "Int" is considered a "remedy" handle it to the point it isn't bothering the person any more. But that doesn't mean it won't kick in again, later on. It used to be, after an SO "production mission" came through our org, most of our execs would go "out-int" from all of the forcefull yelling that had occurred, to get them to "raise necessity level", and get their stats up. Ugh...

    And then there is another aspect of this that I haven't heard anyone else comment upon. In the NOT's materials, there are MORE Int Buttons to use to assess\handle than there are on the C\S 53. The handling of "Int" is a huge factor on NOTs, where LRH mentioned that "Out-Int" is the genus of "BT's".

    I think I had 3 "End of Endless Int" rundowns, a Full Int Rundown with R3RA (which was a great action, and the one I went "clear" on) and then have had to address it again on the solo is simply a condition that needs to be addressed so that further auditing can occur. On solo, it is usually very simple to address, and it has none of the "one week stability check" nonsense that is there in the lower grades....

    It can be some of the heaviest "charge" a person can sit can be so easily remedied that you really have to wonder why it is made so difficult and "scarce" to train on it and handle it. I have seen it kick in early on the grade chart, so it tends to run with a bit of unreality early on, as the pc's tend to run shallow and are still skittish about dealing with "mental image pictures".
  12. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    Thanks very much, Panda. I'm glad you amplified your original response.

    Maybe it's like OT3, in that something real is being addressed by the procedure even though Hubbard's theory is way off base.

    I agree that one often hears things like, "I have trouble getting into that." Meaning something like the speaker is not interested in getting involved with that activity. But, to take another example, getting hung up on not being able to get into Mimi's pants does not mean that one is suffering from a *general* inability to get into things.

  13. Panda Termint

    Panda Termint Cabal Of One

    LOL, sometimes I compose my thoughts as I compose my posts.

    I was thinking of other buttons than "Can't go/get in" but there you go.

    I sometimes think that the Tech Dictionary definition of Interiorised very adequately defines the condition many scientologists find themselves in as regards the CofS; Conceptually that would be, "Going into something too fixedly and becoming part of it/unable to get out."
  14. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Important Subject

    Nice posts, Paul and Panda.

    This is an important subject. Unfortunately, Hubbard screwed it up like he did with most of what he touched.

    The real question is: Interiorized into, or exteriorized out of, what or where?

    In my experience and observation, for individuals to consider the answer to that question to be your body, or even the physical universe, is to suffer a real bum steer! And that is the stupid error of the proposition as put by Hubbard. These "locations" or "Whats" are too late on the chain of the actual case issue, and in reality a wrong item . . . though addressing such, as in addressing a heavy lock or secondary (item or incident) will give some relief and case gain for the individual.

    The real issue and the event/thing that is at the bottom of the phenomena and which is a basic on the chain is, I have found in myself and in other cases I am familiar with, the following.

    The first thing to say is that one's body (that one may well have considered to be the actual you that you are being or are "in" before Scn) and the physical universe (which among "enlightened" types is often viewed as the sole antithesis of or sole alternative to "spirit" and again, the "thing/location" one is "in") is way late on the chain; and only the PT representation of a very early, basic spiritual presence phenomenon.

    The basic that has been missed by most is that way, way early in their existence as spiritual Beings, they once enjoyed their manifesting of presence and existence. They were expandedly present and infinitely aware. Then something happened that they could not experience (I won't get into the variations on the basic theme of that here:no:); and there were two possible reactions or "solutions" to that: one was the interiorizing in by focusing awareness (attention) and presence in (it was a kind of inversion vector), and the other was to get the hell away "from there"!

    This event being way before the physical universe and its earlier "substantial" universes.

    Well, either of these solutions was and became a catastrophically reactive and continued solution that itself brought about problems . . . which typically got solved also erroneously and often by reversal of or a countering of the earlier wrong answer solution.

    And hence we have carried forward the spiritual conditions of "out" and "in" which are in actuality only expressions of our presence vector and of attention or awareness direction, etc.

    In present time, this chain of actions that resulted in the formation of various ridges, appears as a compounding of a series of "shells" or cocoon-like things and/or positions (beingnesses) that we can be "in" or "out" of, but on a compulsive, out-of-control basis.

    Hope the above does not appear too "complicated":)

  15. degraded being

    degraded being Sponsor

    I had the in-ext rd (or whatever it was called) after I had had lots and lots of stuff including Dianetics, drug RD, Jo'burgs etc.

    I was really glad when the auditor told me I was going to get it cos I had read about it and thought it would make me feel more "grounded" "connected" or something. I thought I probably needed it.

    But it did not seem to do anything at all for me. When I finished I was just left convinced that it was *not* something that I needed.
  16. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Geez . . . I take my attention off of the thread to write a post and all those additional good posts from others that P & P occur.

    Nice contributions on this thread . . . . so far:D

  17. blownstaffmember

    blownstaffmember Patron with Honors

    I had an out int rundown after walking around for several days feeling I was deformed, like one eyeball was about the size of a basketball and the other a pea. This came after a particularly exteriorizing session, (at least that's what I thought at the time.)

    The rundown was fairly short (maybe two 2 hour sessions) and it seemed to fix my perception.

    Reading many of people's experiences here, I can't help but think there was an awful lot of horrible auditing and csing going on. Maybe I was just lucky.

    If I was ever auditing a session and the auditee had this reaction:

    I'd have instantly checked for a false read. I think waaaaaayyyyyyy too many people have run endless crap on false reads. Of course it will read if someone tells you constantly that it's reading, even if you don't know wtf they are talking about.
  18. EP - Ethics Particle

    EP - Ethics Particle Gold Meritorious Patron

    What I just thought of...

    Thanks to all that posted thoughtful responses from experience.

    I had "End of Endless..." at Flag 15 or so years ago and thought it a "fair to middlin" action.

    But reading Rog's post, it flashed to me that there might be a wild "Theta Bop" or bops encountered when touching this kind of thing. :confused2: cigar...:unsure:

    Last edited: Jul 13, 2010
  19. Tiger Lily

    Tiger Lily Gold Meritorious Patron

    One of my biggest wins in Scientology was the EP of an "end of endless int repair" R/D -- -- -- I have no idea why, but it was a wonderful feeling and a huge validation of my spiritual nature. It was probably 20 years ago and I have felt more grounded and haven't had any headaches since then.

    I have no idea if it was placebo effect or not -- it sure felt very real; what happened was not what I had been expecting to happen. But I've been wrong about that before -- the human mind is capable of believing a lot of crazy things if it wants to.
  20. Ted

    Ted Gold Meritorious Patron

    Placebo or not, it does not matter if a person hasn't had headaches for 20 years!