Martin Luther

Commenting on Scientology, Inside and Outside the Church

Read It Drill It Do It Bridge

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m not tech trained. So you’ll hopefully forgive me if I get the occasional Tech fact wrong. Please feel free to let me know if I do that. But since I’m not tech trained, I’d like to blithely speculate on something.

I’ve often heard of doing various types of auditing on a read it, drill it, do it basis. I know they do things like on the RPF (or used to). And it seems like I’ve heard of it occurring under other circumstances as well. And so I wonder if it wouldn’t be possible to do your Bridge that way all the way up. When I say that, I mean that you could do it with a twin, starting at the beginning, have a C/S and/or suitably trained Tech terminal looking over your shoulder as you go along. You both (you and your twin) stop at various points to do whatever “training” and study is necessary. And then, once done with your study, the C/S writes out the instructions for the next step or so you will audit. He keeps a sharp eye on your progress and suggests crams and instructs as needed, should something go a little off.

Assuming a perceptive C/S with good 8C, two reasonably intelligent PCs/students who are diligent and thorough in their study, enough drilling to get them each comfortable with their subject matter, and assuming nothing goes terribly wrong along the way, it seems to me like two people could go all the way up the Bridge this way. And when I say “study” I don’t mean simple robotic absorption of data. For example, when studying the Laws of Listing and Nulling, you wouldn’t simply memorize things and go on. You’d want to know why the Laws are that way. And what would happen if things weren’t carried out that way.

I’ll give you an example of the type of studying I’m talking about. When I was in school, I used to love math. My first year of algebra, I had a friend in my algebra class who liked math as much as I did. We would challenge each other by making up all kinds of wild and difficult equations and giving them to each other to solve. Being math geeks, we enjoyed this a lot and learned a lot when we had to correct each other’s work. Later on, when studying algebra and analysis (different school, different friends) I used to figure out different ways to derive the quadratic formula. (The quadratic formula is an essential formula for solving a lot of equations that have x2 and the like in them.) The quadratic formula is sort of complicated, and it can be easy to forget parts of it, etc. So my idea was that if you could derive it quickly in the middle of a test where you needed it, you’d never get in trouble if you forgot parts of it. Yeah, I know this is pretty math-geeky. My point is that this kind of study is the kind of thorough study you do when you really like a subject and want to know it from all sides, most importantly the hows and whys of the subject. Maybe you could look at it as the difference between studying a subject you’re majoring in in college, versus studying a subject you only have mild interest in.

In any case, it seems to me that if you and your twin study the Tech thoroughly under the direction of a good tech terminal and/or C/S, and keep your nose clean and are sincere, you could even skip the Academy (the traditional course room) and get all the way up the Bridge. Obviously, you’d need good checksheets, access to all the materials you need, etc.

(Please don’t get the impression that I’m dismissing the value of an Academy, supervisor and word clearer. Under normal circumstances, this is the best way to get your training standardly. I’m just speculating on the extreme case where it’s completely impractical to get to or spend a significant amount of time in an Academy. Just as obviously, I’m not suggesting you co-audit parts of the Bridge which are done solo. Solo means solo.)

If you’re tech trained and you disagree with this idea for some reason, please let me know why and be prepared for probing questions from me. Again, I’m not saying everyone or even a majority should do their Bridges this way. I’m just wondering if it isn’t an alternative possibility in extreme circumstances.

Advertisements

Single Post Navigation

One thought on “Read It Drill It Do It Bridge

  1. Theta Clear on said:

    Greetings Paul !!!
    Actually, the “read it, drill it, do it” approach is what LRH intended. Then it got perverted by RTC by obsessively placing an emphasis on “perfection” (at the level of basic auditor training). There is nothing wrong with seeking perfection and, in fact, it is something to be expected. But it is accomplished through “auditing in the chair” under a competent
    C/S cramming you at every tech alter-iss. That’s how LRH always produced top auditors under his supervision and in a relative short time.

    Striving for perfection at basic auditor trainning (levels 0-IV) are outpoints of incorrectly included datum (perfection at that level) , assumed similar are not similar (a class IV is NOT similar to a class VI SHSBC graduate) and added time (it shouldn’t take long to produce a class IV).

    Your ref is (among many others) is LRH ED 299 INT 28 SEPT 78 “THE END OF ENDLESS TRAINING”. The plan was , basically , to have short checksheets where auditors could rapidly train and co-audit at the SAME time while doing so. So it is a kind of “Read it , Drill it , Do it” activity after all if you look at it this way.

    Now, GAT 2 , is apparently based on the above mentioned LRH ED. The only problem with that being , that such an LRH ref is not and never had been “lost tech”. It was quite visible. So RTC (which is synonymous with DM) created GAT 1 Long-training auditor programs, putting emphasis on “expert , flubless auditors” instead of a fast auditor training line-up where auditors would rapidly train and co-audit at same time. Then this same RTC, reverted that change back with GAT 2. But now, the ones who got trained and drilled to death on GAT 1 , have to arbitrarily do it all over again and with a $5,000 USD E-Meter (which becomes $10,000 USD as auditor requires per policy one “back-up” E-Meter) and at their OWN EXPENSE. Talking about “We Deliver what We Promise” gross policy violation.

    So there you have it.

    ARC,
    TC

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: