Search and Discovery is being made and auditors are finding on one person and another “Myself”. Well, just amongst us girls, of course, you are going to find it. One of the best reasons you are going to find it is that it is part of the R6 bank. The other reason you are going to find it is that after a person is totally overwhelmed by a Suppressive he assumes the valence of the Suppressive. And a person you would find that on has actually been pretty suppressive.

What you’re doing is, you are pushing S & D to a point where you are clearing suppression. It wasn’t intended to go that far.

If you were to ask the listing question however, “Name ‘Myself’” or “Give ‘Myself’ a name”, you would then get the Suppressive.

But this is getting very adventurous, because it is part of the R6 bank. It is getting very adventurous to do anything about it. We seem to be happy about having “Myself”. I would just let them go right on being happy about it. With skill you probably could bring out the identity of this person whose valence had come over them. It would all depend on the auditor who is doing it. If I were doing it, I’d go ahead and break it down. But not a Class III auditor who is not sure what he is going up against, who is repeating the word several times, repeating the question, trying to check it to make sure the listing question is clean. Don’t you see, you are never going to get that listing question clean. That I assure you. That question can’t be listed out.

That is the mechanism of suppression overwhelming a person. Oddly enough you will only find it on persons who are suppressive and of course you’ve walked into the real mechanism of how does a Suppressive become a Suppressive? He becomes a Suppressive by taking over the valence of a Suppressive.

Then when you list it out you get “Myself” and this is compounded by the fact that it’s part of the R6 bank so you don’t dare do much with it but it will let a bunch of steam off the case.

With some very, very, very, very upstage auditing, very careful indeed, give them the auditing question once, then say, “Go on and answer the question” but never repeat it, never check the thing to find out if it’s a clean list – you probably would get at least one recent SP out of that combination. How we do that at that stage when I’ve not worked with it technically I would not be able to tell you, but I just know that it would be very risky. It makes me feel like maybe I shouldn’t do anything about it at all because it’s too risky, but I can see somebody getting messed up.

Your main trouble in S & D is much worse than that – it is simply an inability to assess*Editor’s note: At that time, “assessment” and “nulling” were not as clearly distinguished as later. See e.g. Technical Dictionary, “Assessment”, Def. 4. . And auditors since time immemorial have had trouble assessing. They have two troubles in assessing. They underlist and they overlist. It’s almost an accident that an auditor ever lists the right lists the right way. I’m not saying that sarcastically but it has been my experience in teaching auditors to assess that they have two faults, they underlist and they overlist.

If they do either one of these things, they are going to ARC Break the pc and then the list isn’t going to be nullable because the pc is not responding to the auditor’s voice as well, and it quite often was the first one on the list which is where they never looked. More fundamental than that is simply the problem of reading an E-Meter. Those technical facts are in the road of S & D.

Actually an auditor who can assess can pass off an S & D so fast it would be like dealing cards done by a Monte Carlo Vingt-et-Un player; he could just roll them off left, right and centre. There’s no real trouble in it. It’s a very fast action. It all depends on how much you want to keep the pc under tension in the action, because an assessment isn’t auditing to begin with.

You would start Session with, “Sit down, I’m going to assess you now. Do you have some answers to this question. Brr. Brr. Brr.” And the pc says, “I want to tell you about…” “All right, good, I’m glad you’re going to tell me about that but right now I want some answers to this question.” See? Then “brrrrr” on down and then you’ll notice your needle relax. Then you say, “All right, now I’m going through this list.” Ratatat, etc. “That’s it, all right. Thanks very much.” Pc cognites 10 minutes. Pc cognites and the Meter blows up and good indicators come in, and you’ve done an S & D. There is nothing more complicated than that.

You’ve got auditors who were trying to do an S & D in a session. You got them that are afraid the pc has already given it on the list. You got them that haven’t learned how the Meter reacts when you’ve got a complete list. (A Meter just falls flat when you’ve got a complete list. The needle goes clean.) And you’ve got them that aren’t sure that they’ve got any SP, and they just didn’t see that the Meter did a surge on one of them. Then you get somebody who has overlisted and he’s just ploughed the guy in, so he can’t assess it back easily.

Then you get the fellow who had four of them fall. Certainly if you’ve got four falling there’s two things that can be wrong at this point which makes it very difficult to run back. In one you have passed it. It’s above the four which are falling. You’ve missed it, and the pc is simply discharging on it. And actually you can ask the pc which one was it and he’ll say, “Well, it was Joe, of course.” That’s above the four. Practically every one after the right one will read, because it’s actually blowing down all the time. He’s no longer paying any attention to the auditor.

Then the other thing is you just haven’t completed the list.

You have to make an opinion as to whether or not you’ve overlisted or underlisted. You can also pick up a dirty needle and an ARC Broken pc or protesty pc if you’ve gone by the right one.

Here are the evils of listing, and here are the evils of assessment showing up on S & D. They are simply auditor goofs – it’s just lack of experience on the part of the auditor and lack of understanding of what he’s supposed to be doing. But an auditor who can really assess can knock these things off. I’d spot what auditors can assess reliably, and I’d give them specialized jobs of that character that require listing. This is a very, very highly skilled action. You save a lot of time by pulling such an auditor back into specialty.

In Review you have to do it sometimes when it’s been done. So you have the additional answer of “How do you patch up an assessment that’s already been goofed?” And “Where is the list that was lost?” You’ve got the problem of the list that was completed out of session. “And I got home and was lying in bed…” and so forth. So in Review you always assume the pc continued the list after the session. If the pc is there as a flat ball bearing, you just automatically assume the pc thought of it afterwards or something. It isn’t that the Tech auditor always got it.

I’ll give you a tip in Qual. If you assume automatically that standard technology has not been applied, as your first gambit, in anybody that you’re putting back together again, you’ll about 99% be right. Somehow or other it slipped by in Tech. It slipped by. Somebody thought he did it. Somebody thought it was on the report. And therefore it looked like it didn’t work or something. Something was there. And in all of my D of Ping I have not found it possible to detect all departures from tech by auditors. I’ve never been able to bat 1000 on that. Naturally, it’s nearly impossible.

Technically, what you have to do doesn’t mean that you have to invent technology because there are very standard answers to all these things.