No matching fragments found in this document.
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF I I APRIL 1970
Remimeo
THIRD DYNAMIC TECH
The material contained in HCO BULLETINS applies to the FIRST DYNAMIC
-self, the individual.
The data, material and procedures contained in POLICY LETTERS apply to
the THIRD DYNAMIC-the dynamic of groups,
In applying HCOBs as in auditing a preclear, you see that following a
certain procedure results in the remedy of a certain personal situation.
In applying HCO Policy Letters, you see that by following or continuing
certain Third Dynamic procedures you remedy, handle or continue certain
situations which relate to groups.
In both cases, SURVIVAL is the keynote of the end result.
HCOB auditing tech increases the survival of the individual as an
individual.
HCO Pol Ltr Third Dynamic Tech increases the survival of the group.
Man has always had a certain amount of know-how in both individual and
group matters of survival but he has never had any high level of result.
It is easy to see auditing improve the individual when it is exactly and
expertly applied.
Similarly one can see Third Dynamic Tech improve the group and its
survival potential.
Just as there is "squirrel" auditing (alter-ised and unworkable) so
there can be "squirrel" Third Dynamic Tech.
An executive who has no familiarity with HCO Pol Ltrs can make an awful
lot of mistakes.
It is an easy pretense that First Dynamic Tech existed. But no one got
any better when Man knew no more than the mumbo-jumbo he had before 1950.
Since then real results occur. But they only occur when the actual tech of
Dianetics and Scientology is correctly applied.
The same situation existed in the field of the Third Dynamic. The
pretense was that "business" tech was successful, to name one. But 17 out
of 19 businesses fail every year and the whole of the business world is
under threat from the ideology of communism. Strikes, legislation, banking
and other catastrophes daily remain unhandled by "business tech." So
there's only pretense that "business tech" applies to groups successfully.
It is at best a dying technology.
The failure is that previous Third Dynamic Tech did not seek out and
learn the basic laws on which it must have existed.
You have seen the First Dynamic Tech of auditing develop over the
decades to a highly precise and very workable body of knowledge. The
current search began in about 1931. By 1970 it was in full practice over
the world.
The need of organizations to serve the First Dynamic Tech beginning in
1949 forced further and further into view the absence of Third Dynamic Tech
and its vital need.
mnnr~
With much hard experience the data now contained in HCO Policy Letters
was won. In 1965 1 began an active search for the basic'laws of the Third
Dynamic. What has been found since then has been recorded on tapes or
published in HCO Pol Ltrs.
If auditing took 38 years to bring to a highly polished state, then the
20 years of experience of which only 5 were devoted to an active effort to
locate the basic laws can be seen to be an incomplete study.
But incomplete or not, the data and drills contained in HCO Policy
Letters are a great advance over what Man had.
For instance, in 1950-51, using the crude organizational tech Man then
had, the first board of directors of Dianetics Foundations failed utterly.
Any and all off-on-thewrong-foot moves which became later woes to us were
laid in at that time by some of the finest legal, accounting and PR experts
one could retain.
Twenty years later our organizations, traveling on our developed Third
Dynamic Tech (and even now poorly known by staffs) have enabled us to
survive in the teeth of old vested interests and not only that to expand as
well.
This is due to the practical know-how we have dredged up and used and
which you find in HCO Policy Letters.
Naturally, we have not had time to develop Third Dynamic Drills for
every situation. We have not had time even to train all our staffs.
But the basic knowledge is there, recorded on tape and on HCO Pol Ltrs
and when known, understood and used it gives us survival, expansion and
prosperity. When it isn't known or understood or used, only then do we sag.
If a study of our Third Dynamic Tech is approached from the viewpoint
that it is for use and when known, understood and used that it will deliver
an expected result, then one has a proper framework for the study of it.
If one thinks it is a series of orders, or just some random ideas, then
one will not have the use of it.
The short span of men's lives inhibits the full development of any one
subject in one lifetime. Thus there is a lot of room for further expansion
of our Third Dynamic Tech. But the basic laws can be found in it and many
exact drills are contained in it and it has great value in any zone of
application.
What we now know and use of our Third Dynamic Tech is all that has
forwarded our survival so far.
Thus its wider understanding and use in our own organizations is the key
to prosperity and expansion.
An "old experienced Scn executive" (who has a lot of this know-how) can
go into a collapsing org and boom it. The data he is using is all in these
policy letters. He knows it is there for use and he uses it in action.
The elements he uses are in HCO Policy Letters.
The data encompasses Third Dynamic Tech. It is applied very much like
one applies the First Dynamic Tech to the individual.
In its present state of development, like early auditing material, Third
Dynamic Tech is used to think with, and only the bright mind will achieve
its full potential in action.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:dz.cden.nf Founder
Copyright 0 1970
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
2
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 26 APRIL 1970R
Remimeo REVISED 15 MARCH 1975
Data Series IR
THE ANATOMY OF THOUGHT
There are many types of thought. Unless one knows these types he can
make serious errors on administrative lines.
In the unpublished work "Excalibur" (most of which has been released in
HCOBs, PLs and books) there was an important fundamental truth. This was
SANITY IS THE ABILITY TO RECOGNIZE DIFFERENCES, SIMILARITIES AND
IDENTITIES.
This is also intelligence.
Two or more facts or things that are totally unlike are DIFFERENT. They
are not the same fact or same object.
Two or more facts or things that have something in common with one
another are SIMILAR.
Two or more facts or things that have all their characteristics in
common with one another are IDENTICAL.
SEMANTICS
In a subject developed by Korzybski a great deal of stress is given to
the niceties of words. In brief a word is NOT the thing. And an object
exactly like another object is different because it occupies a different
space and thus "can't be the same object."
As Alfred Korzybski studied under psychiatry and amongst the insane (his
mentor was William Alanson White at Saint Elizabeth's insane asylum in
Wash., D.C.) one can regard him mainly as the father of confusion.
This work, 'general semantics," a corruption of semantics, (meaning
really "significance" or the "meaning of words") has just enough truth in
it to invite interest and just enough curves to injure one's ability to
think or communicate. Korzybski did not know the formula of human
communication and university professors teaching semantics mainly ended up
assuring students (and proving it) that no one can communicate with anyone
because nobody really knows what anybody else means.
As this "modern" (it was known to the Greeks, was a specialty of
Sophists and was also used by Socrates) penetration into culture affects
all education in the West today, it is no wonder that current communication
is badly strained. Schools no longer teach basic logic. Due to earlier
miseducation in language and no real education in logic much broken-down
"think" can occur in high places.
A system of thinking derived from a study of psychotics is not a good
yardstick to employ in solving problems. Yet the "thinking" of heads of
states is based on illogical and irrational rules. Populations, fortunately
less "well-educated," are assaulted by the irrational (kooky) "thinking" of
governments. This "thinking" is faulty mainly because it is based on the
faulty logic shoved off on school children. "You must study geometry
because that is the way you think" is an idiocy that has been current for
the past two or three decades in schools.
I have nothing against Korzybski. But the general impact of "general
semantics"
3
has been to give us stupified schoolboys who, growing up without any
training in logic except general semantics are giving us problems.
Increasingly we are dealing with people who have never been taught to think
and whose native ability to do so has been hampered by a false "education."
ADMINISTRATIVE TROUBLE
At once this gives an administrator trouble. Outside and inside his
sphere of influence he is dealing with people who not only can't think but
have been taught carefully to reach irrational conclusions.
One can make a great deal of headway and experience a lot of relief by
realizing the way things are and not getting exasperated and outraged by
the absurdities that he sees being used as "solutions." He is dealing with
people who in school were not only not taught to think but were often
taught the impossibility of thinking or communicating.
This has a very vast influence on an administrator. Things that are
perfectly obvious to him get so muddled when passed for decision to others
that an administrator tends to go into apathy or despair.
For instance it is completely logical to him that some activity must
either cut its expenses or make more money before it goes broke. So he
passes this on as an order demanding that the activity balance up its
income-outgo ratio. He gets back a "solution" that they "get a huge sum
each week from their reserves" so they will be "solvent." The administrator
feels rattled and even betrayed. What reserves? Do they have reserves? So
he demands to know, has this activity been salting away reserves he knew
nothing about? And he receives a solemn reply-no they don't have any
reserves but they consider the administrator should just send them money!
The idiocy involved here is that the "logic" of the persons in that
activity is not up to realizing that you cannot take more out of something
than is in it.
And the activity mentioned is not alone. Today the "assets" of a company
are said by "competent economists" to be its property-good will-cash added
to its debts! In short, if you have ten pennies and owe E1000 then your
assets are E1000-0-10!
Yes, you say, but that's crazy! And you're right.
For an example of modern "think" the Ford Foundation is believed to have
financially supported the arming of revolutionary groups so they will be
dependent upon the capitalistic system and won't overthrow it even though
the revolutionary group could not exist without Ford Foundation support!
A war is fought and continued for years to defend the property rights of
landlords against peasants although the landlords are mostly dead.
Electronic computers are exported under government license and paid for
by the exporter and shipped to an enemy who could not bomb the exporter
without them in order to prevent the enemy from bombing the exporter.
Yes, one says. That's treason. Not necessarily. It is the inability to
think! It is the result of suppressing the native ability by false systems
of "logic."
PROPER DEFINITIONS
People who annoy one with such weird "solutions" do not know certain
differences.
Thoughts are infinitely divisible into classes of thought.
In other words, in thought there are certain wide differences which are
very different indeed.
A FACT is something that can be proven to exist by visible evidence.
An OPINION is something which may or may not be based on any facts.
4
Yet a sloppy mind sees no difference between a FACT and somebody's
opinion.
In courts a psychiatrist (who is an AUTHORITY) says "Joe Doakes is
crazy." Joe Doakes is promptly put away for ten years, tortured or killed.
Yet this statement is just an OPINION uttered by somebody whose sanity is
more than suspect and what's more is taken from a field "psychiatry" which
has no basis in fact since it cannot cure or even detect insanity.
A vast number of people see no difference at all in FACTS and OPINIONS
and gaily accept both or either as having equal validity.
An administrator continually gets opinions on his lines which are
masquerading as facts.
If opinion instead of facts is used in solving problems then one comes
up with insane solutions.
Here is an example: By opinion it is assumed there are 3000 pounds of
potatoes available in a crop. An order is therefore written and payment
($300 at 100 a pound) is made for the crop. One sack of potatoes is
delivered containing 100 pounds. That sack was thefact. Loss is 2900 pounds
of potatoes,
An administrator runs into this continually. He sends somebody to find
an electric potato peeler "just like the one we had." He gets back a paring
knife because it is the same.
The administrator orders a similar type of shirt and gets overcoats.
The administrator feels he is dealing with malice, sharp practice,
laziness, etc., etc. He can lose all faith in honesty and truthfulness.
The ACTUAL REASON he is getting such breakdowns is
SANITY IS THE ABILITY TO RECOGNIZE DIFFERENCES, SIMILARITIES AND
IDENTITIES.
The people with whom he is dealing can't think to such a degree that
they give him insane situations. Such people are not crazy. Their thinking
is suppressed and distorted by modern "education." "You can't really
communicate to anybody because the same word means different things to
everyone who uses it." In other words, all identities are different.
A BASIC LAW is usually confused by students with an INCIDENTAL FACT.
This is conceiving a similarity when one, the law, is so far senior to the
fact that one could throw the fact away and be no poorer.
When a student or an employee cannot USE a subject he studies or cannot
seem to understand a situation his disability is that basics are conceived
by him to be merely similar to incidental remarks.
The law, "Objects fall when dropped," is just the same to him as the
casual example "a cat jumped off a chair and landed on the floor." Out of
this he fixedly keeps in mind two "things he read"-objects fall when
dropped, a cat jumped off a chair and landed on the floor. He may see these
as having identical value whereas they are similar in subject but widely
different in VALUE.
You give this person a brief write-up of company policy. "Customers must
be satisfied with our service," begins the write-up. Of course that's a law
because it has been found to be catastrophic to violate it. On down the
page is written, "A card is sent to advise the customer about the order."
The employee says he understands all this and goes off apparently happy to
carry out his duties. A few weeks later Smith and Co. write and say they
will do no more business with you. You hastily try to find out WHY. If
you're lucky enough to track it down, you find the shipping clerk sent them
a card saying, "Your order was received and we don't intend to fill it."
You have the clerk in. You lay down the facts. He looks at you glumly
and says
5
he's sorry. He goes back and pulls another blooper. You threaten to fire
him. He's now cost the company $54,000. He is contrite.
All he understands is that life is confusing and that for some
mysterious reason you are mad at him, probably because you are naturally
grouchy.
What he doesn't know is what the administrator seldom taps. It isn't
that he doesn't know "company policy." It's that he doesn't know the
difference between a law and a comment!
A law of course is something with which one thinks. It is a thing to
which one aligns other junior facts and actions. A law lets one PREDICT
that if ALL OBJECTS FALL when not supported, then of course cats, books and
plates can be predicted in behavior if one lets go of them. As the employee
hasn't a clue that there is any difference amongst laws, facts, opinions,
orders or suggestions he of course cannot think as he doesn't have anything
to which he can align other data or with which to predict consequences.
He doesn't even know that company policy is, "Too many goofs equals
fired." So when he does get sacked he thinks "somebody got mad at him."
If you think this applies only to the "stupid employee," know that a
whole government service can go this way. Two such services only promoted
officers to high rank if they sank their own ships or got their men killed!
Social acceptability was the only datum used for promotion and it followed
that men too socially involved (or too drunk) of course lost battles.
An organization, therefore, can itself be daffy if it has a concept that
laws and facts and opinions are all the same thing and so has no operating
policies or laws.
Whole bodies of knowledge can go this route. The laws are submerged into
incidental facts. The incidental facts are held onto and the laws never
pointed up as having the special value of aligning other data or actions.
An administrator can call a conference on a new building, accidentally
collect people who can't differentiate amongst laws, facts, opinions or
suggestions-treating them of equal value-and find himself not with a new
building but a staggering financial loss.
As the world drifts along with its generations less and less taught and
more and more suppressed in thinking, it will of course experience more and
more catastrophes in economics, politics and culture and so go boom. As all
this influences anyone in any organization it is an important point.
PERSONNEL
In despair an administrator enters the field of choosing personnel by
experience with them. He embraces a very cruel modern system that fires at
once anybody who flubs.
Actually he is trying to defend himself against some hidden menace he
has never defined but which haunts him day by day.
The majority of people with whom he deals-and especially governments-
cannot conceive of
1. differences,
2. similarities,
3. identities.
As a result they usually can't tell a FACT from an OPINION (because all
differences are probably identities and all identities are different and
all similarities are imaginary).
A=A=A
We have a broad dissertation on this in Dianetics: The Modern Science of
Mental Health as it affects insane behavior. Everything is everything else.
Mr. X looks at a
6
horse knows it's a house knows it's a school teacher. So when he sees a
horse he is respectful.
When anyone in an org is sanely trying to get things done he sometimes
feels like
he is spinning from the replies and responses he gets to orders or
requests. That's because observation was faulty or think was faulty at the
other end of the comm line. As he tries to get things done he begins to
realize (usually falsely) that he is
regarded as odd for getting impatient.
THE WAYS OUT
There are several ways out of this mess.
a. One is to issue orders that demand close observation and execution.
Issuance of
clear orders provides no faintest opportunity of error, assumption or
default.
b. Another is to demand that an order is fully understood before it is
executed.
C. A third is to be sure one totally understands any order one receives
before one
goes off to do it or order it done.
d. One is to deal only in ORDERS and leave nothing to interpretation.
e. Another is to pretest personnel on one's lines for ability to observe
and conceive
differences, similarities and identities.
f. The effective way is to get the personnel processed.
g. A useful way is to educate people with drills until they can think.
h. Another way is to defend one's areas by excluding insofar as possible
adjacent
areas where crippled think is rampant.
i. A harsh way is to plow under zones whose irrationality is destructive
(such as
psychiatry).
THOUGHT CONFUSIONS
Wherever you have thought confusions (where FACT = OPINION, where
Suggestion = Orders, where an observation is taken as a direction, etc.,
etc., etc.) an administrator is at serious risk.
Misunderstoods pile up on these short circuits. Out of misunderstoods
come
hostilities. Out of these come overwork or destruction.
The need for all discipline can be traced back to the inability to
think. Even when
appearing clever, criminals are idiots; they have not ever thought the
thought through. One can conclude that anyone on management lines, high
or low, is drastically
affected by irrational think.
Individuals to whom differences are identities and identities are
differences can
muddle up an operation to a point where disaster is inevitable.
These are the third dynamic facts with which an organization lives
daily.
The fault can be very subtle so as to nearly escape close search or it
can be so very
broad so that it is obvious and ridiculous. But on all admin lines, the
point that fails has
not achieved the basic law
SANITY IS THE ABILITY TO RECOGNIZE DIFFERENCES, SIMILARITIES
AND IDENTITIES.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.nf Copyright 0 1970, 1975 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
7
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF I I MAY 1970
Remimeo
Data Series 2
LOGIC
The subject of logic has been under discussion for at least three
thousand years without any clean breakthrough of real use to those who work
with data.
LOGIC means the subject of reasoning. Some in ages past have sought to
label it a science. But that can be discarded as pretense and pompousness.
If there were such a "science" men would be able to think. And they
can't.
The term itself is utterly forbidding. If you were to read a text on
logic you would go quite mad trying to figure it out, much less learn how
to think.
Yet logic or the ability to reason is vital to an organizer or
administrator. If he cannot think clearly he will not be able to reach the
conclusions vital to make correct decisions.
Many agencies, governments, societies, groups, capitalize upon this lack
of logic and have for a very long time. For the bulk of the last 2,000
years the main western educator-the Church-worked on the theory that Man
should be kept ignorant. A population that is unable to think or reason can
be manipulated easily by falsehoods and wretched causes.
Thus logic has not been a supported subject, rather the opposite.
Even western schools today seek to convince students they should study
geometry as "that is the way they think." And of course it isn't.
The administrator, the manager, the artisan and the clerk each have a
considerable use for logic. If they cannot reason they make costly and time-
consuming errors and can send the entire organization into chaos and
oblivion.
Their stuff in trade are data and situations. Unless they can observe
and think their way through, they can reach wrong conclusions and take
incorrect actions.
Modern Man thinks mathematics can serve him for logic and most of his
situations go utterly adrift because of this touching and misplaced
confidence. The complexity of human problems and the vast number of factors
involved make mathematics utterly inadequate.
Computers are at best only servomechanisms (crutches) to the mind. Yet
the chromium-plated civilization today has a childish faith in them. It
depends on who asks the questions and who reads the computer's answers
whether they are of any use or not. And even then their answers are often
madhouse silly.
Computers can't think because the rules of live logic aren't fully known
to Man and computer builders. One false datum fed into a computer gives one
a completely wrong answer.
If people on management and work lines do not know logic the
organization can go adrift and require a fabulous amount of genius to hold
it together and keep it running.
Whole civilizations vanish because of lack of logic in its rulers,
leaders and people.
So this is a very important subject.
8
UNLOCKING LOGIC
I have found a way now to unlock this subject. This is a breakthrough
which is no small win. If by it a formidable and almost impossible subject
can be reduced to simplicity then correct answers to situations can be far
more frequent and an organization or a civilization far more effective.
The breakthrough is a simple one.
BY ESTABLISHING THE WAYS IN WHICH THINGS BECOME ILLOGICAL ONE CAN THEN
ESTABLISH WHAT IS LOGIC.
In other words, if one has a grasp of what makes things illogical or
irrational (or crazy, if you please) it is then possible to conceive of
what makes things logical.
ILLOGIC
There are 5 primary ways for a relay of information or a situation to
become illogical.
1. Omit a fact.
2. Change sequence of events.
3. Drop out time.
4. Add a falsehood.
5. Alter importance.
These are the basic things which cause one to have an incorrect idea of
a situation.
Example: "He went to see a communist and left at 3:00 A.M." The omitted
facts are that he went with 30 other people and that it was a party. By
omitting the fact one alters the importance. This omission makes it look
like "he" is closely connected to communism! When he isn't.
Example: "The ship left the dock and was loaded." Plainly made crazy by
altering sequence of events.
Example: "The whole country is torn by riots" which would discourage
visiting it in 1970 if one didn't know the report date of 1919.
Example: "He kept skunks for pets" which as an added falsehood makes a
man look odd if not crazy.
Example: "It was an order" when in fact it was only a suggestion, which
of course shifts the importance.
There are hundreds of ways these 5 mishandlings of data can then give
one a completely false picture.
When basing actions or orders on data which contains one of the above,
one then makes a mistake.
REASON DEPENDS ON DATA.
WHEN DATA IS FAULTY (as above) THE ANSWER WILL BE WRONG AND LOOKED UPON
AS UNREASONABLE.
There are a vast number of combinations of these 5 data. More than one
(or all 5) may be present in the same report.
Observation and its communication may contain one of these 5.
If so, then any effort to handle the situation will be ineffective in
correcting or handling it.
9
USE
If any body of data is given the above 5 tests, it is often exposed as
an invitation to acting illogically.
To achieve a logical answer one must have logical data.
Any body of data which contains one or more of the above faults can lead
one into illogical conclusions.
The basis of an unreasonable or unworkable order is a conclusion which
is made illogical by possessing one or more of the above faults.
LOGIC
Therefore logic must have several conditions:
1. All relevant facts must be known.
2. Events must be in actual sequence.
3 Time must be properly noted.
4. The data must be factual, which is to say true or valid.
5. Relative importances amongst the data must be recognized by
comparing the facts with what one is seeking to accomplish or solve.
NOT KNOW
One can always know something about anything.
It is a wise man who, confronted with conflicting data, realizes that he
knows at least one thing-that he doesn't know.
Grasping that, he can then take action to find out.
If he evaluates the data he does find out against the five things above,
he can clarify the situation. Then he can reach a logical conclusion.
DRILLS
It is necessary to work out your own examples of the 5 violations of
logic.
By doing so, you will have gained skill in sorting out the data of a
situation.
When you can sort out data and become skilled in it, you will become
very difficult to fool and you will have taken the first vital step in
grasping a correct estimate of any situation.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:dz.nf Copyright 0 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
10
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF I I MAY 1970-1
Rernimeo ADDITION OF 23 SEPTEMBER 1977
Data Series 2-1
FURTHER ILLOGICS
Data Series 2, "Logic," lists the 5 primary points of illogic. There are
3 more points of illogic that evaluators should know well and use.
These are
ASSUMED "IDENTITIES" ARE NOT
IDENTICAL
ASSUMED "SIMILARITIES" ARE NOT
SIMILAR OR SAME CLASS OF THING
ASSUMED "DIFFERENCES" ARE NOT
DIFFERENT
Knowledge and study of Data Series I R "Anatomy of Thought" and Data
Series 2 "Logic" will give one an understanding of what these outpoints,
above, mean and how to recognize and use them in evaluation.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Assisted by
Lt. Og) Suzette Hubbard
AVU Verif Officer
LRH:SH:nt.nf Copyright 0 1970, 1977 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
I I
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 12 MAY 1970
Remimeo
Data Series 3
BREAKTHROUGHS
There are two breakthroughs, actually, that have been made here in the
age-old philosophic subject of logic.
The first is FINDING A DATUM OF COMPARABLE MAGNITUDE TO THE SUBJECT.
A single datum or subject has to have a datum or subject with which to
compare it before it can be fully understood.
By studying and isolating the principles that make a situation illogical
one can then see what is necessary to be logical. This gives us a subject
that could be called "Illogicality Testing" or "Irrationality Location" but
which would be better described as DATA ANALYSIS. For it subjects data and
therefore SITUATIONS to tests which establish any falsity or truth.
The other breakthrough consists of the discovery that no rules of logic
can be valid unless one also includes the data being used. The nearest the
ancients came to this was testing the premise or basis of an argument.
Trying to study logic without also having the answers to data is like
describing everything about an engine without mentioning what fuel it runs
on; or making a sentence like "He argued about" or "She disliked" without
completing it.
Logic concerns obtaining answers. And answers depend on data. Unless you
can test and establish the truth and value of the data being used, one
cannot attain right answers no matter what Aristotle may have said or what
IBM may have built.
The road to logic begins with ways and means of determining the value of
the data to be employed in it.
Without that step no one can arrive at logic.
Two things that are equal to each other and to which a third is equal
are all equal to one another. If A equals B and B equals C, then C equals
A. Great. This is often disputed as a theorem of logic and has been ever
since Aristotle said so. There is even a modern cult of non-Aristotelian
logic.
The facts are that the ancient theorem is totally dependent on the DATA
used in it. Only if the DATA is correct does the theorem work.
Lacking emphasis on the data being used, this theorem can be proven true
or false at will. The philosophers point out the fallacy without ever
giving emphasis to data evaluation.
DATA ANALYSIS
Unless you can prove or disprove the data you use in any logic system,
the system itself will be faulty.
This is true of the IBM computer. It is true of CIA intelligence
conclusions. It is true of Plato, Kant, Hume and your own personal computer
as well.
12
DATA ANALYSIS is necessary to ANY logic system and always will be.
Ships run on oil, electric motors on electricity and logic runs on data.
If the data being stuffed into a computer is incorrect, no matter how
well a computer is planned or built or proofed up against faults you can
get a Bay of Pigs.
In mathematics no formula will give an answer better than the data being
used in it.
VALID ANSWERS MAY ONLY BE ATTAINED IN USING VALID DATA.
Thus, if the subject of data analysis is neglected or imperfect or
unknown or unsuspected as a step, then wild answers to situations and
howling catastrophes can occur.
If data analysis becomes itself a codified subject, regardless of what
formula is going to be used, then right answers can only then be attained.
THE MIND AS A COMPUTER
The mind is a remarkable computer.
It is demonstrable that a mind which has the wrong answers removed from
it becomes brighter, IQ soars.
Therefore for our purposes we will consider the mind capable of being
logical.
As processing improves the mind's ability to reach right answers, then
we can assume for our purposes that if a person can straighten out his data
he can be logical and will be logical and can attain right answers to
situations.
The fallacy of the mind is that it can operate on wrong data.
Thus if we specialize in the subject of DATA ANALYSIS we can assume that
a person can attain right answers.
As an administrator (and anyone else) has to reach conclusions in order
to act and has to act correctly to ensure his own or his group's continued
survival, it is vital that he be able to observe and conclude with minimal
error.
Thus we will not be stressing HOW to think but how to analyze that with
which one thinks-which is DATA.
This gives us the importance and use of data analysis.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.rd.nf Copyright ID 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
13
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 15 MAY 1970
Remimeo
Data Series 4
DATA AND SITUATION ANALYZING
The two general steps one has to take to "find out what is really going
on" are
1. Analyze the data,
2. Using the data thus analyzed, to analyze the situation.
The way to analyze data is to compare it to the 5 primary points and see
if any of those appear in the data.
The way to analyze the situation is to put in its smaller areas each of
the data analyzed as above.
Doing this gives you the locations of greatest error or disorganization
and also gives you areas of greatest effectiveness.
Example: There is trouble in the Refreshment Unit. There are 3 people in
the unit. Doing a data analysis on the whole area gives us a number of
outpoints. Then we assign these to A, B and C who work in the unit and find
B had the most outpoints. This indicates that the trouble in the
Refreshment Unit is with B. B can be handled in various ways such as his
hat, his attendance, etc. Note we analyzed the data of the main area and
assigned it to the bits in the area, then we had an analyzed situation and
we could handle.
Example: We analyze all the data we have about the Bingo Car Plant. We
assign the data thus analyzed as out (outpoints) to each function of the
Bingo Car Plant. We thus pinpoint what function is the worst off. We then
handle that function in various ways, principally by organizing it and
grooving in its executives and personnel.
There are several variations.
WE OBTAIN AN ANALYSIS OF THE SITUATION BY ANALYZING ALL THE DATA WE HAVE
AND ASSIGNING THE OUTPOINT DATA TO THE AREAS OR PARTS. THE AREA HAVING THE
MOST OUTPOINTS IS THE TARGET FOR CORRECTION.
In confronting a broad situation to be handled we have of course the
problem of finding out what's wrong before we can correct it. This is done
by data analysis followed by situation analysis.
We do this by grading all the data for outpoints (5 primary illogics).
We now have a long list of outpoints. This is data analysis.
We sort the outpoints we now have into the principal areas of the scene.
The majority will appear in one area. This is situation analysis.
We now know what area to handle.
Example: Seventy data exist on the general scene. We find 21 of these
data are irrational (outpoints). We slot the 21 outpoints into the areas
they came from or apply to. Sixteen came from area G. We handle area G.
14
0007"
EXPERIENCE
The remarkable part of such an exercise is that the data analysis of the
data of a period of I day compares to 3 months operating experience.
Thus data and situation analysis is an instant result where experience
takes a lot of time.
The quality of the data analysis depends on one knowing the ideal
organization and purpose on which the activity is based. This means one has
to know what its activities are supposed to be from a rational or logical
viewpoint.
A clock is supposed to keep running and indicate time and be of
practical and pleasant design. A clock factory is supposed to make clocks.
It is supposed to produce enough clocks cheaply enough that are good enough
to be in demand and to sell for enough to keep the place solvent. It
consumes raw materials, repairs and replaces its tools and equipment. It
hires workmen and executives. It has service firms and distributors. That
is the sort of thing one means by ideal or theoretical structure of the
clock company and its organization.
Those are the rational points.
From the body of actual current today data on the clock company one
spots the outpoints for a DATA ANALYSIS.
One assigns the outpoints to the whole as a SITUATION ANALYSIS.
One uses his admin know-how and expertise to repair the most aberrated
subsection.
One gets a functioning clock factory that runs closer to the ideal.
Military, political and PR situations, etc., are handled all in the same
way.
We call these two actions
DATA ANALYSIS,
SITUATION ANALYSIS.
DEFINITIONS
SITUATION - The broad general scene on which a body of current data
exists.
DATA - Facts, graphs, statements, decisions, actions, descriptions,
which are supposedly true.
OUTPOINT - Any one datum that is offered as true that is in fact found
to be illogical when compared to the 5 primary points of illogic.
PLUSPOINT - A datum of truth when found to be true compared to the 5
points.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:dz.mrb.mes.nf Copyright c 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
15
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 15 MAY 1970
Issue 11
Remimeo
Data Series 5
INFORMATION COLLECTION
It is a point of mystery how some obtain their information. One can only
guess at how they do it and looking at results wonder if it is actually
done at all.
Obtaining information is necessary for any analysis of data.
If one obtains and analyzes some information he can get a hint of what
information he should obtain in what area. By obtaining more data on that
area he can have enough to actively handle.
Thus how one obtains information becomes a very important subject.
Nations have whole mobs of reporters sent out by newspapers, radio, TV
and magazines to collect information. Politicians go jaunting around
collecting information. Whole spy networks are maintained at huge expense
to obtain information.
The Japanese in the first third of the 20th century had two maxims:
"Anyone can
spy." "Everyone must spy." The Germans picked this up. They had their whole
populations at it. The Russian KGB numbers hundreds of thousands. CIA
spends
billions. MI-6 well you get the idea.
It is not amiss however to point out that those 2 nations that devoted
the most effort to espionage (Japan and Germany) were BOTH DEFEATED
HORRIBLY.
Thus the QUANTITY of data poured in is not any guarantee of
understanding.
Newspapers today are usually devoted to propaganda, not news.
Politicians are striving to figure out another nation's evil intentions,
not to comprehend it.
The basic treatise on data collection and handling used to found the US
intelligence data system ("strategic intelligence") would make one laugh-or
cry.
All these elaborate (and expensive) systems of collecting information
are not only useless, they are deluding. They get people in plenty of
trouble.
A copy of Time magazine (US) analyzed for outpoints runs so many
outpoints per page when analyzed that one wonders how any publication so
irrational could continue solvent. And what do you know! It is going broke!
Those countries that spend the most on espionage are in the most
trouble. They weren't in trouble and then began to spend money. They began
to spy and then got into trouble!
News media and intelligence actions are not themselves bad. But
irrational news media and illogical intelligence activity are psychotic.
So information collection can become a vice. It can be overdone.
If one had every org in a network fill out a thousand reports a week he
would not obtain much information but he sure would knock them out of comm.
16
There is a moderate flow of information through any network so long as
it is within the capability of the comm lines and the personnel.
Thus we get a rule about collecting data in administrative structures.
NORMAL ADMIN FLOWS CONTAIN ENOUGH DATA TO DO A DATA AND SITUATION
ANALYSIS.
And
THE LESS DATA YOU HAVE THE MORE PRECISE YOUR ANALYSIS MUST BE.
And
INDICATORS MUST BE WATCHED FOR IN ORDER TO UNDERTAKE A SITUATION
ANALYSIS.
And
A SITUATION ANALYSIS ONLY INDICATES THE AREA THAT HAS TO BE CLOSELY
INSPECTED AND HANDLED.
Thus, what is an "indicator"?
An indicator is a visible manifestation which tells one a situation
analysis should be done.
An indicator is the little flag sticking out that shows there is a
possible situation underneath that needs attention.
Some indicators about orgs or its sections would be-dirty or not
reporting or going insolvent or complaint letters or any nonoptimum datum
that departs from the ideal.
This is enough to engage in a data and situation analysis of the scene
where the indicator appeared.
The correct sequence, then, is
1. Have a normal information flow available.
2. Observe.
3. When a bad indicator is seen become very alert.
4. Do a data analysis.
5. Do a situation analysis.
6. Obtain more data by direct inspection of the area indicated by
the situation analysis.
7. Handle.
An incorrect sequence, bound to get one in deep trouble is
A. See an indicator,
B. ACT to handle.
17
This even applies to emergencies IF ONE IS FAST ENOUGH TO DO THE WHOLE
CORRECT CYCLE IN A SPLIT SECOND.
Oddly enough anyone working in a familiar area CAN do it all in a split
second.
People that can do it like lightning are known to have "fast reaction
time." People who can't do it fast are often injured or dead.
Example of an emergency cycle: Engineer on duty, normal but experienced
perception. Is observing his area. Hears a hiss that shouldn't be. Scans
the area and sees nothing out of order but a small white cloud. Combines
sight and hearing. Moves forward to get a better look. Sees valve has
broken. Shuts off steam line.
Example of an incorrect action. Hears hiss. Pours water on the boiler
fires.
ADMIN CYCLE
When you slow this down to an Admin Cycle it becomes very easy. It
follows the same steps.
It is not so dramatic. It could string out over months unless one
realized that the steps I to 7 should be taken when the first signs show
up. It need not. However it sometimes does.
Sometimes it has to be done over and over, full cycle, to get a full
scene purring.
Sometimes the "handle" requires steps which the area is too broken down
to get into effect and so becomes "Handle as possible and remember to do
the whole cycle again soon."
Sometimes "handle" is a program of months or years duration; its only
liability is that it will be forgotten or thrown out before done by some
"new broom."
DATA COLLECTION
But it all begins with having a normal flow of information available and
OBSERVING. Seeing a bad indicator one becomes alert and fully or quickly
finishes off the cycle.
BAD INDICATOR
What is a "bad indicator" really?
It is merely an outpoint taken from the 5 primary outpoints.
I
It is not "bad news" or "entheta" or a rumor. The "bad news" could
easily be a falsehood and is an outpoint because it is false bad news!
"Good" news when it is a falsehood is an outpoint!
RELIABLE SOURCE
Intelligence services are always talking "reliable sources." Or about
"confirmed observation."
These are not very reliable ways of telling what is true. The master
double spy Philby as a head MI-6 adviser was a Russian spy. Yet for 30
years he determined "reliable sources" for the US and England!
If three people tell you the same thing it is not necessarily a fact as
they might all
18
have heard the same lie. Three liars don't make one fact-they make three
outpoints.
So it would seem to be very difficult to establish facts if leading
papers and intelligence services can't do it!
Yes it is tough to know the truth.
But the moment you begin to work with them, it is rather easy to locate
outpoints.
You are looking for outpoints. When they are analyzed and the situation
is analyzed by them you then find yourself looking at the truth if you
follow the cycle I to 7.
It's really rather magical.
If you know thoroughly what the 5 primary outpoints are they leap into
view from any body of data.
Oscar says he leads a happy married life. His wife is usually seen
crying. It's an outpoint-a falsehood.
The Omaha office is reported by Los Angeles to be doing great. It fails
to report. The LA datum does not include that it is 6 months old. Three
outpoints, one for time, one for falsehood, one for omitted datum.
Once you are fully familiar with the 5 primary outpoints they are very
obvious.
"We are having pie for supper" and "We have no flour" at least shows out
of sequence!
It is odd but all the "facts" you protest in life and ridicule or growl
about are all one or another of the outpoints.
When you spot them for what they are then you can actually estimate
things. And the pluspoints come into view.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.rd.nf Copyright 0 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
19
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 17 MAY 1970R
Remimeo REVISED 16 SEPTEMBER 1978
(Revisions In th1s type style)
(Revised to correct typographical
errors in paragraphs 2 and 4 under
'FAULTS" section.)
Data Series 6R
DATA SYSTEMS
Two bad systems are in current use on data.
The first is "reliable source." In this system a report is considered
true or factual only if the source is well thought of. This is a sort of
authority system. Most professionals working with data collection use this.
Who said it? If he is considered reliable or an authority the data is
considered true or factual. Sources are graded from A to D. A is highest, D
lowest. The frailty of this system is at once apparent. Philby, as a high
British intelligence official, was a Russian spy for 30 years. Any data he
gave the UK or US was "true" because he was a "reliable source." He had
every Western agent who was being sent into communist areas "fingered" and
shot. The West became convinced you could not enter or overthrow communist
held areas and stopped trying! Philby was the top authority! He fooled CIA
and MI-6 for years!
Psychiatrists are "authorities" on the mind. Yet insanity and
criminality soar. They are the "reliable sources" on the mind.
Need I say more?
The other system in use is multiple report. If a report is heard from
several areas or people it is "true." The Russian KGB has a Department D
that forges documents and plants them in several parts of the world. They
are then "true."
Propaganda spokesmen located all over the world say the same thing to
the press on every major occasion. This becomes "public opinion" in
government circles and so is "true" because it is published and comes from
so many areas.
Five informants could all have heard the same lie.
Thus we see these two systems of evaluation are both birdbrain.
TWO PROBLEMS
The two problems that information collection agencies have are
1. Data evaluation and
2. How to locate the areas they should closely investigate.
For (1), data evaluation, they use primarily reliable source and
multiple report.
EVERY ITEM RECEIVED THAT IS NOT "RELIABLE" OR "MULTIPLE" IS WASTE-
BASKETED.
They throw out all outpoints and do not report them!
Their agents are thoroughly trained to do this.
20
As for (2), areas to investigate, they cannot pinpoint where they should
investigate or even what to investigate because they do not use their
outpoints.
Using outpoints and data and situation analysis they would know exactly
where to look at, at what.
ERRORS
The above data errors are practiced by the largest data collection
agencies on the planet-the "professionals." These advise their governments!
And are the only advisers of their governments. Thus you can see how
dangerous they are to their own countries.
Naturally they have agents who have what is called "flair." These,
despite all systems, apply logic. They are so few that Eisenhower's
intelligence adviser, General Strong, said in his book that they are too
scarce so one is better off with a vast organization.
These agencies are jammed with false reports and false estimations.
An event contemporary with this writing where the US invaded Cambodia
shows several data and situation errors. Yet the Viet Cong HQ were using
computers. Yet their HQ was wiped out. The US President used CIA data which
does not include, by law, data on the US. So the info on which the US
President was acting was 50% missing! He was only told about the enemy
evidently. When he ordered the invasion the US blew up!
A rather big outpoint (omitted facts) don't you think?
FAULTS
The reason I am using intelligence examples is because these are the
biggest human data collection "professionals" in the world.
The collection and use of data to estimate situations to guide national
actions and the data collection by a housewife going shopping are based on
the same principles.
Mrs. Glutz, told by a "reliable source," Nellie Jones, that things are
cheaper at Finkleberries and told by enough TV admen she should buy KLEANO
tends to do just that. Yet Blastonsteins is really cheaper and by shaving
up laundry soap and boiling it she can have ten dollars worth of KLEANO for
about fifty cents.
Errors in national data collection give us war and high taxes and for
Mrs. Glutz gives her a busted budget and stew all week.
So at top and bottom, any operation requires a grasp of data evaluation
and situation estimation.
Those who do it will win and those who don't, go up in a cloud of atomic
particles or divorce papers!
Logic and illogic are the stuff of survive and succumb.
There are those who wish to survive.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Revision assisted by
Pat Brice
LRH Compilations Unit I/C
LRH:PB:nt.dr.nf Copyright 0 1970, 1978 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
21
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 18 MAY 1970
Remimeo
Data Series 7
FAMILIARITY
If one has no familiarity with how a scene (area) ought to be, one
cannot easily spot outpoints (illogical data) in it.
This is what also could be called an IDEAL scene or situation. If one
doesn't know the ideal scene or situation then one is not likely to observe
non-ideal points in it.
Let us send a farmer to sea. In a mild blow, with yards and booms
creaking and water hitting the hull, he is sure the ship is about to sink.
He has no familiarity with how it should sound or look so he misses any
real outpoints and may consider all pluspoints as outpoints.
Yet on a calm and pretty day he sees a freighter come within 500 feet of
the side and go full astern and thinks everything is great.
An experienced officer may attempt madly to avoid collision and all the
farmer would think was that the officer was being impolite! The farmer,
lacking any familiarity with the sea and having no ideal as to what smooth
running would be, would rarely see real outpoints unless he drowned. Yet an
experienced sailor, familiar with the scene in all its changing faces sees
an outpoint in all small illogicals.
On the other hand, the sailor on the farm would completely miss rust in
the wheat and an open gate and see no outpoints in a farm that the farmer
knew was about to go bust.
The rule is
A PERSON MUST HAVE AN IDEAL SCENE WITH WHICH TO COMPARE THE EXISTING
SCENE.
If a staff hasn't got an idea of how a real org should run, then it
misses obvious outpoints.
One sees examples of this when an experienced org man visiting the org
tries to point out to a green staff (which has no ideal or familiarity)
what is out. The green staff grudgingly fixes up what he says to do but
lets go of it the moment he departs. Lacking familiarity and an ideal of a
perfect org, the green staff just doesn't see anything wrong or anything
right either!
The consequences of this are themselves illogical. One sees an untrained
executive shooting all the producers and letting the bad hats alone. His
erroneous ideal would be a quiet org, let us say. So he shoots anyone who
is noisy or demanding. He ignores statistics. He ignores the things he
should watch merely because he has a faulty ideal and no familiarity of a
proper scene.
OBSERVATION ERRORS
When the scene is not familiar one has to look hard to become aware of
things. You've noticed tourists doing this. Yet the old resident "sees" far
more than they do while walking straight ahead down the road.
22
It is easy to confuse the novel with the "important fact." "It was a
warm day for winter" is a useful fact only when it turns out that actually
everything froze up on that day or it indicated some other outpoint.
Most errors in observation are made because one has no ideal for the
scene or no familiarity with it.
However there are other error sources.
"Being reasonable" is the chief offender. People dub-in a missing piece
of a sequence, for instance, instead of seeing that it IS missing. A false
datum is imagined to exist because a sequence is wrong or has a missing
step.
It is horrifying to behold how easily people buy dub-in. This is because
an illogical sequence is uncomfortable. To relieve the discomfort they
distort their own observation by not-ising the outpoint and concluding
something else.
I recall once seeing a Tammany Hall group (a New York political bunch
whose symbol is a tiger) stop before the tiger's cage in a zoo. The cage
was empty and they were much disappointed. I was there and said to them,
"The tiger is out to lunch." They told those on the outer edge of the
group, "The tiger is out to lunch." They all cheered up, accepted the empty
cage and went very happily on their way. Not one said "Lunch?" Or "Who are
you?" Or laughed at the joke. Even though it was sunset! I pitied the
government of New York!
ACCURATE OBSERVATION
There are certain conditions necessary for accurate observation.
First is a means of PERCEPTION whether by remote communication by
various comm lines or by direct looking, feeling, experiencing.
Second is an IDEAL of how the scene or area should be.
Third is FAMILIARITY with how such scenes are when things are going well
or poorly.
Fourth is understanding PLUSPOINTS or rightnesses when present.
Fifth is knowing OUTPOINTS (all 5 types) when they appear.
Sixth is rapid ability to ANALYZE DATA.
Seventh is the ability to ANALYZE the SITUATION.
Eighth is the willingness to INSPECT more closely the area of outness.
Then one has to have the knowledge and imagination necessary to HANDLE.
One could call the above the CYCLE OF OBSERVATION. If one calls HANDLE
number 9 it would be the Cycle of Control.
If one is trained to conceive all variations of outpoints (illogics) and
studies up to conceive an ideal and gains familiarity with the scene or
type of area, his ability to observe and handle things would be considered
almost supernatural.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:dz.nf Founder
Copyright Q 1970
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
23
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 19 MAY 1970
Remimeo
Data Series 8
SANITY
An observer has to be sane to sanely observe.
This has been so far out in the society that the word "sane" itself has
come to mean "conservative" or "cautious." Or something you can agree with.
The 19th century psychologist decided he could not define "normal" and
there weren't any normal people. The 14th century psychiatrist is the 20th
century "authority" on sanity. Yet an examination of such shows them to be
unable to demonstrate it personally or bring it about, much less define it.
Dictionaries say it is "health, soundness of body or mind; level-
headedness, reasonableness."
Yet sanity is vital to accurate observation.
FIXED IDEAS
The "id6e fixe" is the bug in sanity.
Whenever an observer himself has fixed ideas he tends to look at them
not at the information.
Prejudiced people are suffering mainly from an "id6e fixe."
The strange part of it is that the "id6e fixe" they think they have
isn't the one they do have.
An example of this is the social "scientist" with a favorite theory. I
have seen tons of these birds pushing a theory as though it was the last
theory in the world and valuable as a ten-pound diamond. Such throw away
any fact that does not agree with theory. That's how 19th century
psychology went off the rails. All fixed ideas and no facts.
The physical sciences in Hegel's time did the same thing. There was no
8th planet in the solar system, even when found in a telescope, because
"seven is a perfect number so there can only be seven planets."
History is full of idiocies-and idiots-with fixed ideas. They cannot
observe beyond the idea.
A fixed idea is something accepted without personal inspection or
agreement. It is the perfect "authority knows best." It is the "reliable
source." A typical one was the intelligence report accepted by the whole US
Navy right up to 7 Dec. 1941, the date of destruction of the US fleet by
Jap planes. The pre-Pearl Harbor report, from unimpeachably reliable
sources was "the Japanese cannot fly-they have no sense of balance." The
report overlooked that the Japs were the world's greatest acrobats! It
became a fixed idea that caused the neglect of all other reports.
A fixed idea is uninspected. It blocks the existence of any contrary
observation.
Most reactionaries (people resisting all progress or action) are
suffering from fixed ideas which they received from "authorities," which no
actual experience alters.
That British red-coated infantry never took cover was another one. It
took a score or two of wars and fantastic loss of life to finally break it
down. If any single fixed idea destroyed the British Empire, this one is a
candidate.
NORMAL SCENE
The reason a fixed idea can get so rooted and so overlooked is that it
appears normal or reasonable.
24
And somebody or a lot of somebodies want to believe it.
Thus a fixed idea can become an ideal. It is probably a wrong ideal.
Incapable Jap pilots would be a wish for a navy. It would be wonderful! Red-
coated infantry were supposed to be brave and unflinching.
In both cases the ideal is irrational.
A rational ideal has this law:
THE PURPOSE OF THE ACTIVITY MUST BE PART OF THE IDEAL ONE HAS FOR THAT
ACTIVITY.
A navy that has an ideal that the enemy can't fly is stupidly avoiding
its own purpose which is to fight.
British infantry had the purpose of winning wars, not just looking
brave.
Thus one can analyze for a sane ideal by simply asking, "What's the
purpose of the activity?" If the ideal is one that forwards the purpose, it
will pass for sane.
There are many factors which add up to an ideal scene. If the majority
of these forward the purpose of the activity, it can be said to be a sane
ideal.
If an ideal which does not forward the activity in any way is the ideal
being stressed then a fixed idea is present and had better be inspected.
This could be said to be a very harsh utilitarian view of things. But it
is not. The artistic plays its role in any ideal. Morale has its part in
any ideal.
An ideal studio for an artist could be very beautiful or very ugly so
long as it served him to produce his art. If it was very beautiful yet
hindered his artistic activities it would be a very crazy ideal scene.
A handsome factory that produced would be a high ideal. But its nearness
to raw materials, transport and worker housing are the more important
factors in an ideal of a factory. And its location in a country where the
government made an atmosphere in which production could occur could be an
overriding part of an "ideal scene."
You have to look at what the area is for before you can say whether it
is ideal or not.
And if its area is too limited to produce or too expensive for it to be
solvent, then it isn't a sane scene.
URGESTOIMPROVE
Sometimes the urge to improve an activity is such that it injures or
destroys the activity.
If one is familiar with the type of activity he must also realize that
there is a law involved.
THE FACT THAT SOMETHING IS ACTUALLY OPERATING AND SOLVENT CAN OUTWEIGH
THE UNTESTED ADVANTAGES OF CHANGING IT.
In other words, an ideal scene might be vastly different but the actual
scene IS operating.
So the factor of OBSESSIVE CHANGE enters. Change can destroy with
ferocity.
Whole areas of London, jammed with small but customer-filled shops, have
been swept away to make room for chromium high-rent modern stores which
stand empty of buyers.
Birmingham, where you could get anything made, had all its tiny craft
shops swept away and replaced with high-rent huge new buildings all on some
progress-crazy psychotic break.
Possibly the new stores and the huge new shops fitted somebody's "ideal"
but they did not match an actual operating environment.
It is this difference between an ideal scene and a practical scene which
brings down many old businesses and civilizations.
Therefore, to have an ideal, familiarity with what works is desirable.
25
It is quite possible without any familiarity, to imagine a successful
ideal. BUT IT MUST NOT HAVE ANY FIXED IDEAS IN IT.
It is the fixed idea that knocks a practical operating living
environment in the head.
Do-gooders are always at this. They see in a row of old shacks, not
economic independence and a lazy life but P-0-V-E-R-T-Y. So they get a new
housing project built, shoot taxes into the sky, put total control on a lot
of people and cave in a society.
The do-gooder is pushing the 19th century fixed idea of the Comte de
SaintSimon-to gear the whole economy down to the poorest man in it. In
other words to reward only the downstat. Everyone becomes a slave of course
but it sure sounds good.
Newspapermen are probably the world's worst observers. They observe
through the fixed ideas of the publisher or the prevailing control group.
Their stories are given them before they leave the office. Yet their
observations advise the public and the government!
The outpoints to be found in any contemporary newspaper brand most
stories as false before one proceeds more than a paragraph.
Yet this is what the world public is expected to run on.
Naturally it distorts the scene toward raving insanity. This conflicts
with the native logic of people so the public thinks the world a lot madder
than it really is.
In two cities all newspapers were suspended from publication for quite a
period. In both, crime dropped to zero! And resumed again when newspapers
were again published.
The ideal scene of the citizen in his workaday world is vastly different
than the scene depicted in a newspaper.
The difference between the two can make one feel quite weird.
Thus there should not be too wide a difference between the ideal and the
represented scene. And not too wide a difference between the ideal and the
actual scene.
R (reality) consists of the is-ness of things. One can improve upon this
is-ness to bring about an ideal and lead the R up to it. This is normal
improvement and is accepted as sane.
One can also degrade the R by dropping the representation (description)
of the scene well below the actual. In the black propaganda work
traditionally carried on by many governments this latter trick of
corrupting the R is the means used to foment internal revolt and war.
Both actions of upgrade and downgrade are outpoints when reported as
facts. "We made E1000 in reserves this week" is as crazily outpoint as "the
government went broke this week" when either one is not the truth.
When the report says, "we should plan a higher income," it is leading to
a higher idea! and is not an outpoint mainly because it is not representing
any fact but a hopeful and ambitious management.
5 POINTS
When none of the outpoints are present, yet you do have reports and the
scene is functioning and fulfilling its purpose one would have what he
could call a sane scene.
If all 5 points were absent yet the scene was not functioning well
enough to live, it would be such a departure from the ideal that that
itself would be outpoint in that importance was altered. What is out here
is the whole situation! The situation analysis would be instantly visible.
But in practice this last happens only in theory, not in practice. A
collapsing situation is forecast by outpoints in its data.
Organisms and organizations tend to survive.
A decline of survival is attended also by outpoints.
26
SANITY IS SURVIVAL
Anything not only survives better when sane but it is true that the
insane doesn't survive.
Thus survival potential can be measured to a considerable degree by the
absence of outpoints.
This does not mean that sane men can't be shot or sane organizations
can't be destroyed. It means only that there is far less chance of them
being shot and destroyed.
So long as men and organizations are connected to insane men and
organizations, wild things can and do happen unexpectedly.
But usually such things can be predicted by outpoints in others.
When sane men and organizations exist in a broad scene that is convulsed
with irrationality, it takes very keen observation and a good grip on logic
and fast action to stay alive. This is known as "environmental challenge."
It can be overdone! Too much challenge can overwhelm.
The difference between such happening to a sane man or organization and
to the insane would be that the failure did not itself become a fixed idea.
INSANITY
The 5 primary illogics or outpoints as we call them are of course the
anatomy of insanity.
In their many variations the insanity of any scene can be sounded and
the nucleus of it located.
By locating and then closely inspecting, such a point of insanity can
then be handled.
When you know what insanity really is you can then confront it and
handle it. One is not driven into a huge generality of "everything is
insane."
By detecting and eliminating small insane areas, taking care not to
destroy the sane things around it, one can gradually lift any situation up
to sanity and survival.
By seeing what is insane in a scene and seeing why it is insane, one has
by comparison also found what is sane.
By locating and understanding outpoints one finds the pluspoints; for
any given situation.
And that is often quite a relief.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.rd.nf Copyright c 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
27
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 MAY 1970
Remimeo
Data Series 9
ERRORS
Many who begin to use "illogics," who have not drilled on them so they
can rattle them off, choose errors instead of outpoints.
An error may show something else. It is nothing in itself.
An error obscures or alters a datum.
Example: Asking someone to spot the outpoints in a Russian passenger
vacation cruise liner in a foreign port, the answers were, "The hammer and
sickle are upside down." "The courtesy flag is not flying right side up."
These aren't outpoints. The hammer and sickle weren't backwards so saying
it was an outpoint. The actual outpoint was passenger vacation cruise
liner. There is no Russian idle class. It was too big to be giving cruises
to winning tractor drivers. Russian and vacation cruise liner just don't go
together. Either the reports of Russian refusal to let Russians travel is
false or it wasn't a vacation cruise liner but it was. Hence it's an
outpoint. An omitted datum. Two contrary data means one is false.
Investigation disclosed it was Russian all right and a vacation cruise
liner all right. BUT IT WAS CHARTERED TO AN ITALIAN COMPANY THAT SOLD
CRUISES TO ITALIANS!
But this leads to a new outpoint. How come the workers paradise is
building huge ships for capitalist pleasures?
If anyone like a Martian was tracing down what's out on this planet,
this one outpoint would lead to others.
A situation analysis would indicate an investigation of Russia where
outpoints abound and the Martian would know a lot of what's wrong on the
planet,
In doing so he would find a lot of capitalistic outpoints which would
lead him to investigate the so-called West and he would have the basic
"cold war" of communism versus capitalism.
This would lead him into new data the two have in common (economics) and
a data analysis of economics would discover the screwiest bunch on the
planet, the international banker playing off both sides.
He would have analyzed the planet.
Given that he knew or could translate languages, it might take him a
week, starting with a Russian luxury cruise liner, to run down the
planetary bad spot.
Now if he reversed his investigation and used PLUSPOINTS he would arrive
with a situation analysis of what group would be strong enough to handle
the down spot and by investigation possibly pinpoint what could tip over
the bad spot.
If he just used "errors" he would get no place.
The ideal he would have to be working from would be a planet at peace
where individuals could go about their affairs and be happy without threats
of immediate
28
arrest or destruction. It would be a very simple ideal or it would be based
only on how planetary populations and cultures survive and that is already
laid down in an earlier rule in this series.
Ask somebody to look at a table used for meals at the end of a meal and
indicate any outpoints. Usually he'll point out a dirty plate or crumbs or
an ashtray not emptied. They are not outpoints. When people finish eating
one expects dirty plates, crumbs and full ashtrays. If none of these things
were present there might be several outpoints to note. The end of a meal
with table and plates all clean would be a reversed sequence. That would be
an outpoint. Evidentially the dinner has been omitted and that would be
quite an outpoint! Obviously no meal has been served so there's a
falsehood. So here are three outpoints.
It is best to get what outpoints are down pat. One does this first by
thinking up examples and then by observing some body of data and then by
looking at various scenes.
It will be found that outpoints are really few unless the activity is
very irrational.
Simple errors on the other hand can be found in legions in any scene.
Child's games often include, "What's wrong with this picture?" Usually
they are just errors like a road sign upside down. But if you had a brown
rabbit in winter holding down a man with its front paws and a caption,
"Japanese parasols attack ," you'd have some real outpoints.
A lot of people would try to figure it out and supply new outpoints
(being reasonable). A learned professor could point out the symbolism. Some
would laugh it off. Some would be annoyed by it. And the reason anybody
would do anything about it is that it is sort of painful to confront the
irrational so instead of seeing its is-ness of illogics an effort is made
to make it logical or to throw it away.
The reason misunderstood words or typographical errors were not regarded
as a barrier to study was that people converted them or not-ised them. In
actual fact a word one does not understand made a missing datum.
Reasonableness or nonconfront enter in and one drops the book.
Errors do not count in pluspoints either.
That a factory has a few errors is no real indicator. A factory has
pluspoints to the degree it attains its ideal and fulfills its purpose.
That some of its machinery needs repair might not even be an outpoint. If
the general machinery of the place is good for enough years to easily work
off its replacement value there is a pluspoint.
People applying fixed or wrong ideals to scene are only pointing up
errors in their own ideals, not those of the scene!
A reformer who had a strict Dutch mother looks at a primitive Indian
settlement and sees children playing in mud and adults going around
unclothed. He forces them to live cleanly and cuts off the sun by putting
them in clothes-they lose their immunities required to live and die off. He
missed the pluspoint that these Indians had survived hundreds of years in
this area that would kill a white man in a year!
Thus errors are usually a comparison to one's personal ideals. Outpoints
compare to the ideal for that particular scene.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:nt.cc.nf Founder
Copyright c 1970
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
29
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 JUNE 1970
Remimeo
Data Series 10
THE MISSING SCENE
The biggest "omitted data" would be the whole scene.
A person who does not know how the scene should be can thereafter miss
most of the outpoints in it.
An example is the continual rewrite of the International Code (signaling
by flags between ships) by some "convention" composed of clerks who have
never gone to sea. Not knowing the scene, the International Code of Signals
now contains "How are your kidneys?" but nothing about lifeboats.
College education became rather discredited in Europe until students
were required to work in areas of actual practice as part of their studies.
Educated far from reality students had "no scene." Thus no data they had
was related by them to an actual activity. There was even an era when the
"practical man" or "practical engineer" was held in contempt. That was when
the present culture started to go down.
On the other hand one of the most long-lived activities around is the
wine industry of Portugal. It has almost no theory trained. It is total
scene. Every job in it is by apprenticeship for years. It is very constant
and very successful.
A good blend would be theory and practical in balance. That gives one
data and activity. But it could be improved by stressing also the ideal
scene.
BODIES OF DATA
Data classifies in similar connections or similar locations.
A body of data is associated by the subject to which it is applicable or
by the geographical area to which it belongs.
A body of data can also be grouped as to time, like an historical
period.
Illogic occurs when one or more data is misplaced into the wrong body of
data for it.
An example would be "Los Angeles smog was growing worse so we fined New
York." That is pretty obviously a misplace.
"Cars were no longer in use. Bacterial warfare had taken its toll."
"I am sorry madam but you cannot travel first class on a third class
passport."
Humanoid response to such displacements is to be reasonable. A new false
datum is dreamed up and put into the body of data to explain why that datum
is included. (Reasonableness is often inserted as explanation of other
outpoints also.)
In the smog one, it could be dreamed up that New York's exports or
imports were causing LA smog.
30
In the car one, it could be imagined that bacteriological warfare had
wiped out all the people.
In the train one, it could be inserted that in that country, passports
were used instead of tickets.
The brain strains to correctly classify data into its own zones and is
very rejective or imaginative when it is not.
Intelligence tests accidentally use this one very often.
It remains that an outpoint can occur when a datum belonging to one zone
of data, location or time, is inserted into another zone where it doesn't.
Algebra is sometimes hard to learn for some because NUMBERS are invaded
by LETTERS. 2x = 10. X is of course 5. But part of a new student's mind
says letters are letters and make words.
Primitive rejective responses to foreigners is a mental reaction to a
body of people, in this case, being invaded by a person not of that tribe.
If the scene is wholly unknown, one doesn't know what data belongs to
it. Thus a sense of confusion results. Recruits can be sent for ruddy rods
for rifles and apprentice painters can be ordered to get cans of sky blue
lampblack.
A sense of humor is in part an ability to spot outpoints that should be
rejected from a body of data. In fact a sense of humor is based on both
rejection and absurd outpoints of all types.
Reasonable people accept displacements with an amazing tranquility by
imagining connecting links or assuming they do not know the ideal scene. A
reasonable person would accept a pig in a parlor by imagining that there
was a good reason for it. And leave the pig in the parlor and revise their
own ideal scene!
Yet pigs belong to a body of data including barns, pens, farms, animals.
And parlors belong to a body of data including teacups, knickknacks,
conversation and humans.
Possibly Professor Wundt who "discovered" in 1879 that humans were
animals had seen too many pigs in parlors! And based the whole of
"psychology" on a confusion of bodies of data!
Murder in a hospital, as done by psychiatry, would be a confusion of
bodies of actions. Actions belong to their own bodies of data.
One drives a car, rides a horse. One doesn't ride a car but one can
drive a horse. But the action, the motions involved with, driving a horse
are very different than those used in driving a car. This is a language
breakdown called a "homonym." One word means two different things. Japanese
is an easy language except for its use of the same word for several
different things. Two Japanese talking commonly have to draw Chinese
characters (Japanese is written with Chinese characters) to each other to
unravel what they mean. They are in a perpetual struggle to pry apart
bodies of data.
" 1234 Red 789 P 987 Green 432 Apple" as a statement would probably tie
up CIA codebreakers for weeks as they would know it was a code. The same
statement would tie up a football coach as he would know it was a team
play. A mathematician would know it fitted into some other activity than
his. Hardly anyone would classify it as a totally meaningless series of
symbols.
So there is a reverse compulsion-to try to fit any datum found into some
body of data.
The mind operates toward logic, particularly in classes of things.
31
The sensible handling of data of course includes spotting a datum,
terminal, item, action, grouped in with a body of data wrong for it. And in
spotting that a datum does not have to belong anywhere at all.
Included in mental abilities is putting similar data into one type of
action, items, or data. Car parts, traffic rules, communications, are each
a body of data in which one can fit similar data.
When a person has some idea of the scene involved, he should be able to
separate the data in it into similar groups.
An org board is an example of this. Sections are broad classes of action
or items into which one can fit the related data. Departments are a broader
body of related data, actions, items. Divisions are even broader but still
cover related classes of data. The whole org is a very broad class of data,
determined in part by the type of product being made.
If a person has trouble relating data to its proper body of data (if he
were unaware or "reasonable") he would have an awful lot of trouble finding
his way around an org or routing despatches or getting things or wearing
his own hat.
Orders are a broad class of data. Orders from proper sources is a
narrower body of data. If a person cannot tell the difference he will
follow anyone's orders. And that will snarl him up most thoroughly.
I once knew a carpenter so obliging and so unable to classify orders
that he built knickknacks, cabinets, shelves, for any staff member who
asked and wasted all the time and materials and orders from his boss that
were to have built a house! The house materials and money and the
carpenter's time and pay were all expended without anything of value to
show for it! Not only was he unable to relate orders to their own classes
but also couldn't relate materials and plans to a house!
In most miscarriages of projects it will be found that someone on the
line cannot relate data or actions to their own classes. Along with this
goes other illogics.
So the ability to spot illogics in a known scene can directly relate to
efficiency and even to success and survival.
A switch intended for a house put into an airplane electrical system
cuts out at 30,000 feet due to the wrong metal to withstand cold and there
goes the airplane. A part from one class of parts is included wrongly in
another class of parts.
So there is an INCORRECTLY INCLUDED DATUM which is a companion to the
OMITTED DATUM as an outpoint.
This most commonly occurs when, in the mind, the scene itself is missing
and the first thing needed to classify data (scene) is not there.
An example is camera storage by someone who has no idea of types of
cameras. Instead of classifying all the needful bits of a certain view
camera in one box, one inevitably gets the lens hoods of all cameras
jumbled into one box marked "lens hoods." To assemble or use the view
camera one spends hours trying to find its parts in boxes neatly labeled
"camera backs," "lenses," "tripods," etc.
Here, when the scene of what a set up view camera looks like and
operates like, is missing, one gets a closer identification of data than
exists. Lens hoods are lens hoods. Tripods are tripods. Thus a wrong system
of classification occurs out of scene ignorance.
A traveler unable to distinguish one uniform from another "solves" it by
classifying all uniforms as "porters." Hands his bag to an arrogant police
captain and that's how he spent his vacation, in jail.
32
Lack of the scene brings about too tight an identification of one thing
with another. This can also exclude a vital bit making a disassociation.
A newly called-up army lieutenant passes right on by an enemy spy
dressed as one of his own soldiers. An experienced sergeant right behind
him claps the spy in jail accurately because "he wasn't wearing 'is 'at the
way we do in the Fusileers!"
Times change data classification. In 1920 anyone with a camera near a
seaport was a spy. In 1960 anyone not carrying a camera couldn't be a
tourist so was watched!
So the scene for one cultural period is not the scene for another.
Thus a class of data for a given time belongs broadly or narrowly to
itself. Including a datum in it or from another time or excluding a datum
from it, or forcing a datum to have a class can in any combination produce
an illogical situation.
Some knowledge of the scene itself is vital to an accurate and logical
assembly or review of data.
The scene therefore, knowledge of, is the basic "omitted data."
The remedy of course is to get more data on what the scene itself really
should consist of. When the scene is missing one has to study what the
scene is supposed to consist of, just not more random data about it.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.nf Copyright c 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
33
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 30 JUNE 1970
Remimeo
Data Series 11
THE SITUATION
Probably the hardest meaning to get across is the definition of
"SITUATION."
One can say variously, "Isolate the actual situation" or "Work out what
the situation is" and get the most remarkable results.
To some, a despatch is a situation. A small error to others is a
situation.
Yet, if one wishes to know and use data and logic one must know exactly
what is meant in this logic series by SITUATION.
English has several meanings for the one word. In the dictionary it's a
"place," a 64state or condition of affairs," "a momentous combination of
circumstances," "a clash of passions or personalities," or "a job." One
gets the feeling that people are fumbling around for a meaning they know
must be there.
For our purposes we had better give an exact definition of what is meant
by SITUATION. If we are going to do a situation analysis by doing an
analysis of data, then WHAT is a situation?
We can therefore specifically define for our purposes in logic the word
SITUATION.
A SITUATION IS A MAJOR DEPARTURE FROM THE IDEAL SCENE.
This means a wide and significant or dangerous or potentially damaging
CIRCUMSTANCE or STATE OF AFFAIRS which means that the IDEAL SCENE has been
departed from and doesn't fully exist in that area.
THEIDEALSCENE
One has to work out or know what the ideal scene would be for an
organization or department or social strata or an activity to know that a
wide big flaw existed in it.
To be somewhat overly illustrative about it, let us take a town that has
no one living in it.
One would have to figure out what was the ideal scene of a town. Any
town. It would be a place where people lived, worked, ate, slept, survived.
It could be pretty or historical or well designed or quaint. Each of these
would possibly add purpose or color to the town.
BUT this town in question has NO people living in it.
That is a departure from the ideal scene of towns.
Therefore THE SITUATION would be NO PEOPLE LIVE IN THIS "TOWN."
Data analysis would lead us to this by noting outpoints.
34
6 P.M. - No smoke from house chimneys. (omitted item)
9 P.M. - No lights. (omitted item)
Dawn - No dogs. (omitted terminals)
1910 election poster. (wrong time)
That would be enough. We would then realize that a SITUATION existed
because data analysis is also done against the ideal scene.
We would know enough about it to look more closely.
No people! That's the SITUATION.
HANDLING
Thus if one were responsible for the area one would now know what to
handle.
How he handled it depends upon (a) the need, (b) availability of
resources. and (c) capability.
Obviously if it's supposed to have people in it and if one needs a town
there one would have to get a bright idea or a dozen and eventually get
people to live there. How fast it could be done depends on the availability
of resources-those there or what one has (even as little resource as a
voice, paper, pen, comm lines).
One's own capability to get ideas or work or the capabilities of people
are a major factor in handling.
But so far as the SITUATION is concerned, it exists whether it is
handled or not.
HOW TO FIND A SITUATION
When you are called upon to find out if there IS a situation (as an
inspector or official or soldier or cat or king, whatever) you can follow
these steps and arrive with what the situation is every time-
1. Observe.
2. Notice an oddity of any kind or none.
3. Establish what the ideal scene would be for what is observed.
4. Count the outpoints now visible.
5. Following up the outpoints observe more closely.
6. Establish even more simply what the ideal scene would be.
7. The situation will be THE MOST MAJOR DEPARTURE FROM THE IDEAL SCENE.
HANDLING
Just as you proceed to the MOST MAJOR SITUATION-go big, when it comes to
handling it usually occurs that reverse is true-go small!
It is seldom you can handle it all at one bang. (Of course that happens
too.)
But just because the SITUATION is big is no real reason the solution
must be.
Solutions work on gradient scales. Little by more by more.
35
When you really see a SITUATION it is often so big and so appalling one
can feel incapable.
The need to handle comes first.
The resources available come next.
The capability comes third.
Estimate these and by getting a very bright workable (often very simple)
idea, one can make a start.
An activity can get so wide of the ideal scene the people in it are just
in a confusion. They do all sorts of odd irrelevant things, often hurt the
activity further.
Follow the steps given 1-7 above and you will have grasped the
SITUATION. You will then be able to do (a), (b), (c).
That begins to make things come right.
In that way most situations can be both defined and handled.
INTERFERENCE
Lots of people, often with lots of authority, get mired into situations.
They do not know they are in anything that could be defined, isolated or
stated. They bat madly at unimportant dust motes or each other and just
mire in more deeply.
Whole civilizations uniformly go the route just that way.
So do orgs, important activities and individuals.
One can handle exactly as above, if one practices up so he can really do
the drill on life.
The only danger is that the situation can be so far from any ideal that
others with fixed ideas and madness can defy the most accurate and sensible
solutions.
But that's part of the situation, isn't it?
Data analysis is done to make a more direct observation of exactly the
right area possible. One can then establish the exact SITUATION.
It's a piece of freedom to be able to do this.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.cden.gm Copyright 10 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
36
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 5 JULY 1970
Remimeo
Data Series 12
HOW TO FIND AND ESTABLISH AN IDEAL SCENE
In order to detect, handle or remedy situations one has to be able to
understand and work out several things.
These are defining the ideal scene itself, detect without error or guess
any departure on it, find out WHY a departure occurred and work out a means
of reverting back to the ideal scene.
In order to resolve a situation fully one has to get the real reason WHY
a departure from the ideal scene occurred.
"What was changed?" or "What changed?" is the same question.
That "change" is the root of departures comes from a series of plant
experiments I conducted. (The type of experimentation was undertaken to
study cellular life behavior and reaction to see if it was a different type
of life-it isn't. The experiments themselves were later repeated in various
universities and were the subject of much press for them over the world.)
In setting up conditions of growth I observed that plants on various
occasions greatly declined suddenly. In each case I was able to trace the
last major CHANGE that had occurred and correct it. Changes made in
temperature, water volume, humidity, ventilation, greatly affected the
plants in terms of wilt, decreased growth rate, increase in parasites, etc.
When THE change was isolated and the condition reverted to that
occurring during the previous healthy period, a recovery would occur.
At first glance this may seem obvious. Yet in actual practice it was not
easy to do.
Gardeners' records would omit vital data or alter importance or drop out
time, etc. A gardener might seek to cover up for himself or a fellow
worker. He tended to make himself right and would enter falsehoods or
reassurance that was a falsehood into the analysis.
A new gardener would seem to affect the plants greatly and one could
build a personality influence theory on this-until one found that, being
untrained in the procedure used, he would enter even more outpoints than
usual.
At such a juncture one would of course train the gardener. BUT that
didn't locate WHAT had been changed. And one had to locate that to get the
plants to recover. The conditions in use were extreme forcing conditions
anyway and lapse of duty was very apparent. Sixteen-foot hothouse American
corn from seeds usually furnishing 5-foot stocks, 43 tomatoes to the truss
where 5 is more usual were the demands being met. So any change showed up
at once.
The fact of change itself was a vital point as well. One discovery was
that life does best in a near optimum constancy-meaning that change just as
change is usually harmful to plant life.
The fact of isolating change in the environment as the sole harmful
cause was one discovery.
37
That one had to isolate THE change in order to obtain full recovery was
another discovery.
Change itself was not bad but in this experimental series conditions
were set as optimum and the beneficial changes had already been made with
remarkable results. Thus one was observing change from the optimum.
This would be the same thing as "departures from the ideal scene."
The action was always
1. Observe the decline.
2. Locate the exact change which had been made.
3. Revert THE change.
4. A return to the near ideal scene would occur if one were
maintaining the ideal scene meanwhile.
THEIDEALSCENE
There are two scenes:
A. The ideal scene
B. The existing scene,
These of course can be wide apart.
How does one know the ideal scene?
At first thought it would be very difficult for a person not an expert
to know the idealscene.
For years certain "authoritarian" people in the field of mental healing
fought with lies and great guile to obscure the fact that the ideal scene
in mental healing can be known to anyone. Such imprisoned and tortured and
murdered human beings with the excuse that they themselves were the only
experts. "It takes 12 years to make a psychiatrist." "Expert skill is
required to kill a patient."
The existing scene these "experts" made was a slaughterhouse for asylums
and the insanity and crime statistics soaring.
They fought like maniacs to obscure the ideal scene and hired and
coerced an army of agents, "reporters," "officials," and such to smash
anyone who sought to present the ideal scene or ways to attain it. Indeed
it was a world gone mad with even the police and governments hoodwinked by
these "experts."
Yet any citizen knew the ideal scene had he not been so propaganda
frightened by the existing scene.
By constantly pounding in the "naturalness" of an existing scene
consisting of madness, crime, torture, seizure and murder, these mad
"experts" PUT THE IDEAL SCENE SO FAR FROM REACH THAT IT APPEARED
INCREDIBLE. It was so bad a situation that anyone proposing the ideal scene
was actively resisted!
Yet the ideal scene is so easy to state that any citizen could have
stated it at any time. And often believed it was occurring!
The ideal scene of an asylum would be people recovering in a calm
atmosphere, restored to any previous ability, emerging competent and
confident.
The ideal scene in the society would be, probably, a safe environment
wherein one could happily make his way through life.
38
Of course, the technology of the mind was the missing data. But the
experts in charge of that sector of life paid out hard cash to hoods to
prevent any such technology developing-a matter fully documented.
The gap between the ideal scene and the existing scene can be very wide
and in any endeavor elements exist that tend to prevent a total closure
between the two.
However, approached on a gradient with skill and determination, it can
be done.
DEPARTURE
The mental awareness that something is wrong with a scene is the point
at which one can begin reverting to the ideal scene.
Without this awareness on the part of a GROUP then an individual can be
much impeded in handling a situation.
The mental processes of the person seeking to improve things toward an
ideal scene or change them back to an ideal scene must include those who
are also parts of the scene.
Seeing something wrong without seeking to correct it degenerates into
mere faultfinding and natter. This is about as far as many people go. That
something, real or imagined, is wrong with the scene is a not uncommon
state of mind. Not knowing what's intended or being done, or the
limitations of resource or the magnitude and complexity of opposition, the
armchair critic can be dreadfully unreal. He therefore tends to be
suppressed, particularly by reactionaries (who try to keep it all as it is
regardless).
Unfortunately, the continual battle of life then is between the critic
and the reactionary. As this often blows up in pointless destruction, it
can be seen there could be something wrong with both of them.
Particularly the inactive carping critic is at fault on three counts.
A. He isn't doing anything about it.
B. He is not conceiving or broadcasting a real ideal scene.
C. He is not providing any gradient approach to actually attain an
ideal scene.
The reactionary of course simply resists any change regardless of who is
suffering providing the reactionary can retain what position and possession
he may have.
A revolutionary of course usually
I . Is doing something about it even if violent.
2. Is conceiving and broadcasting his version of the ideal scene,
and
3. Is planning and acting upon some means of bringing about his own
idealscene.
History and "progress" seem to be the revolutionary making his version
of progress over the dead bodies of reactionaries.
And although it may be history and "progress" the cycle is usually
intensely destructive and ends up without attaining an ideal scene and also
destroying any scene existing.
The ancient world is filled with ruins over which one can wander in
contemplative and philosophic reverie. These attempts to make and maintain
an ideal scene certainly left enough bruised masonry around.
So it is really not enough to natter and it's rather too much to thrust
violent change down on the heads of one and all including the objectors.
39
Violent revolution comes about when the actual ideal scene has not been
properly stated and when it excludes significant parts of the group.
It's no good having a revolution if the end product will be a FURTHER
departure from the ideal scene.
The pastoral nonsense of Jean Jacques Rousseau was about as wide from an
ideal scene as you could get, and it and other efforts, also wide, brought
on the French Revolution.
The Russian 1917 revolution had already been preceded by the democratic
Kerensky revolt. But it failed because Russia being Russia was about a
century and a half late.
Also the French Revolution was late.
And in both cases those who should have led didn't. Lesser ranks
overthrew command.
These and countless other human upheavals mark the fluttering pages of
history and history will be written in similar vein again and again to
eternity unless some sense and logic gets into the scene.
Revolt is only an expression of too long unmended departures from the
ideal scene of society.
Usually the stitches taken to mend the growing social order are too weak
and too hastily improvised to prevent the cultural fabric from being torn
to rags.
Street battles and angry infantry are the direct opposite of the ideal
political scene.
What was needed in such a case was an awareness of departure from the
ideal scene, the discovery of WHY a departure occurred and a gradient, real
and determined program to return the scene closer to the ideal.
The elements of improved mechanical arts and progress in the humanities
may be utilized to effect the recovery. In any event (which is missed by
the reactionary and his "good old days") cultures do change and those
changes are a part of any new ideal scene. So one does not achieve a
reversion to the ideal by turning back the clock. One must be bright enough
to include improvements in a new ideal scene.
IDEAL SCENE AND PURPOSE
Let us look this over, this concept of the ideal scene, and see that it
is not a very complex thing.
One doesn't have to be much of an expert to see what an ideal scene
would be.
The complex parts of the whole may not make up the whole, but they are
not really vital to conceiving an ideal scene for any activity, as small as
a family or as big as a planet.
The entire concept of an ideal scene for any activity is really a clean
statement of its PURPOSE.
All one has to ask is "What's the purpose of this?" and one will be able
to work out what the ideal scene of "this" is.
To give a pedestrian example let us take a shoe shop. Its purpose is
obviously to sell or provide people with shoes. The ideal scene is almost
as simple as "This activity sells or provides people with shoes."
Now no matter how complex may be the business or economics of shoe
sales, the fact remains that that is almost the ideal scene.
Only one factor is now missing: TIME.
40
The complete ideal scene of the shoe shop is then, "This activity is
intended to provide people with shoes for (time)." It can be always or for
its owner's lifetime or for the duration of the owner's stay in the town or
the duration of the state fair.
Now we can see departures from the ideal scene of this shoe store.
One has to work out fairly correctly what the purpose of an activity is
and how long it is to endure before one can make a statement of the ideal
scene.
From this one can work out the complexities which compose the activity
in order to establish it in the first place including the speed of the
gradient (how much shoe store how fast) and also how to spot the fact of
departure from the ideal scene.
This process would also work on any portion of the shoe store if the
main ideal is not also violated. The children's department, the cashier,
the stock clerk also have their sub-ideal scenes. And departures from their
ideal scenes can be noted.
It doesn't matter what the activity is, large or small, romantic or
humdrum, its ideal scene and its sub-ideal scenes are arrived at in the
same way.
METHODS OF AWARENESS
Statistics are the only sound measure of any production or any job or
any activity.
The moment that one goes into any dependence on opinion, he goes into
quicksand and will see too late the fatal flaw in restoring anything.
If the fact that anything can be given production statistics seems too
far out, it is visible that even a guard, who would at first glance seem to
be producing nothing but giving only security, is actually producing
minutes, hours, weeks, years, of continued production TIME.
Probably the most thoughtful exercise is not conceiving the ideal scene
but working out what the production statistic of it is. For here, the
activity or subactivity must be very correctly staticized to exactly
measure the ideal scene of any activity or the statistic will itself bring
about a departure!
Just as the purpose from which the ideal scene is taken must be correct,
so must the statistic be all the more thoughtfully correct.
As an example, if the ideal scene of the shoe store is given the total
statistic of its income then three things can happen:
1. It may cease to provide people with shoes that persuade them to
come back for more.
2. It may sell shoes without enough profit to cover overhead and
cease to exist.
3. It may conduct itself with more interest in the cashier than the
customer and lose its trade.
Probably its statistic is "percentage of citizens in the area profitably
shod by this store."
Working out how long it takes to wear out an average pair of shoes, any
ex-customer would be retired from the percentage after that time span had
elapsed from buying his last pair.
Given a fairly accurate and realistically updated census figure, that
statistic would probably tell the tale of the ideal scene, which has its
element of continuance.
The sole fixation on making money can depart from the scene. Abandonment
of making any money would certainly cause a departure of the shoe store.
A commando battalion would have just as serious an examination for its
ideal scene and statistic as a shoe store! And it would give a very, very
effective activity if
41
Mmlr~
fully worked out. You'd really have to work out, probably better than the
generals who think they have, the real purpose of a commando battalion
(which is probably "to disperse enemy preparations by unexpected actions
and overinvolve enemy manpower in expensive guarding"). The statistic could
be something like "our individual soldiers freed from opponents" and/or
"casualties not occurring by reason of interrupted enemy preparations."
In effect the commando battalion would be "producing." The results would
be an effective increase in men under arms for their own side.
WHY
Knowing, then, the ideal scene and its statistic, one, by keeping the
statistic, can notice without "reasonableness" or somebody's report or some
fifth column propaganda, an immediate departure from the ideal scene.
Remember, violent change only becomes seemingly vital when the departure
from the ideal scene is noticed too late .
Opinion, reports, subject to outpoints as they almost always are, seldom
tell one more than somebody else's prejudices or his efforts to cover or
failures to observe.
Now that a departure is seen (because the statistic drops) one can
quickly go about noticing when and so get at WHY.
When he has the WHY of the departure he can proceed to handle it.
The statistic, guarded against false reports, and verified, is a clean
statement not as subject to outpoints as other types of statements.
Whole activities have been smashed by not having a statistic of success
but taking an opinion of trouble, and reversely, by having a statistic
indicating disaster but a broadcast opinion of "great success." Probably
the latter is the more frequent.
It is not possible to locate WHY the departure soon enough to remedy
unless one takes the most reliable datum available-which is the datum most
easily kept clean of outpoints-which is a statistic.
You don't really even know there is a Why unless there has been a
departure. And the departure may be very hard to spot without a statistic.
I have seen a group producing like mad, doing totally great, but which
had no statistic, become the subject of wild outpoints and even contempt
within itself.
If an activity lacks an ideal scene and a correct statistic for it, it
has no stable datum with which to rebuff opinion and outpoints. To that
extent the group goes a bit mad.
Group sanity depends. then. upon an ideal scene. correct sub-ideal
scenes and statistics to match.
One of the calmest safest groups around had a bad reputation with fellow
groups because it did not have or make known its ideal scene and did not
have or release its statistics.
And it had a hard time of it for quite a while, meantime working
exhaustedly but dedicatedly.
Planet, nation, social groups, businesses, all their parts and the
individual have their ideal scene and their statistic, their departures and
successes and failures. And none fall outside these data.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.cden.nf Copyright 0 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL. RIGHTS RESERVED
42
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 6 JULY 1970
Remimeo
Data Series 13
IRRATIONALITY
Any and all irrationality is connected to departures from an ideal
scene.
Therefore outpoints indicate departures.
It must follow then that rationality is connected to an ideal scene.
These three assumptions should be studied, observed and fully grasped.
They are very adventurous assumptions at first glance for if they are
true then one has not only the definition of sanity in an organization or
individual but also of neurosis and psychosis. One also sees that
organizations or social groups or companies or any third dynamic (the urge
to survival as a group) activity can be neurotic or psychotic.
It therefore would follow that the technology of the ideal scene,
existing scene, departures, outpoints and statistics would contain or
indicate the means of establishing sane groups or individuals or measuring
their relative sanity or re-establishing relative sanity in them.
THE PLAGUE OF MAN
Man has been harassed by irrationality in individual and group conduct
since there has been Man.
The existing scene of Man's activities is so immersed in departures and
outpoints that at first survey there would seem to be no possible handling
of the situation.
Most people have accepted the existing conditions as "inevitable" and
toss them off with a "that's life."
This is of course an overwhelmed attitude.
And it is true that the departure from any ideal is so distant as to
obscure any feeling of reality about possibly achieving an ideal scene even
in a limited area.
Philosophies exist to "prove" that chaos is needful to furnish
challenge. That is like saying "Be glad you're crazy" (as 19th century
psychologists did say). Or "Suffering refines one," as the playwrights of
the early 20th century so fondly used in their plots.
One whole religious order preached the necessity to accept Man as he is.
Thus Man is plagued with defeatism, has lacked technology, and
civilization after civilization has succumbed, either in a flash of flame
and war or in the slow erosion of grinding distress.
Most men, it has been said, live lives of quiet desperation.
One doesn't have to live through several wars to learn that Man and his
leaders are something less than sane.
Every sword-waving conqueror has exploited Man's seeming inability to
avoid brotherly slaughter and no conqueror or army seems to have noticed
that wars only rarely shift boundaries no matter how many are killed.
Europe for centuries has
43
excelled in the development of marble orchards and failed remarkably to
establish any lasting political scene at all.
In other lands government leaders, who should have at least a partial
duty of preserving their citizenry have sat raptly listening to the advice
of madmen for some centuries now. US leaders lately have taken to acting on
the mental health guidance of many civilian committees, each one of which
contains at least one member of an organization directly connected to
Russia! The country most interested in fomenting US civil commotion! A
former head of CIA once cracked for a joke, "What if there were a Russian
KGB agent inside CIAT' The shudder of horror that went through US
politicians was interesting to see. Yet every new employee of CIA was
"vetted" before employment by members of two organizations connected to
Russia! The "American" Psychological Association and the "American"
Psychiatric Association are directed by the World Federation of Mental
Health founded by Brock Chisholm, the companion of Alger Hiss and Whittaker
Chambers, the famous US communist traitors. And the US government pays the
WFMH to hold congresses which are attended by Russian KGB delegates. And
all intelligence given the President on Vietnam, where the US was "fighting
communism" was passed through the hands of a man whose parents are both
Russian born communists. And the US Defense Department intelligence on the
same war was led and "coordinated" by another communist-connected employee.
With that many outpoints showing up in their social welfare and
intelligence scene, the US government seems something less than bright in
wondering, "What riots?" "Why drugs?" "Why defeats?"
The statistics of the US welfare and social scene under the domination
of the World Federation of Mental Health are soaring insanity, crime and
riot graphs. It is so bad that Russia will never have to fight an atomic
war. The US economic, political and social scene will deteriorate and is
deteriorating so rapidly that the US will have lost any will to fight or
any economic or social power to resist Russia.
(In case you wonder as to the factualness of data given above, it is all
documented.)
I have given this existing scene so that you can see the outpoints. The
deteriorated state of public safety in the US is well known. The fantastic
sums it spends are well known.
I have given visible outpoints.
One glance at psychiatric and psychological statistics (which are all
negative) would tell any sane person that they must be doing something else
as they were given all the money, political power and authority ever needed
to handle the scene. But it got worse! So, checking the scene for
outpoints, one finds them directly connected to the No. I US enemy. Their
data is marvellous for outpoints. Paid to serve the US, their literature
discusses mainly abolishing boundaries and the Constitution.
The US official, so drowned in the chatter and confusion of double-talk
and false intelligence and situation reports, apparently cannot see any
solution. And heaps money on his traitors and finances their avid
destruction of the country.
Yet, outpoints are so many and so visible that even the citizen sees
them while the official remains apparently numb and inactive.
Very well, Man can and does get drowned in his own irrationality. And
his civilizations rise and fall.
Man's primary plague is irrationality. He is not in the grip of a "death
wish," nor is he having a love affair with destruction. He has just lacked
any road out or the technology to put him on it.
RESOLVING THE SCENE
All the US would have to do is count up the outpoints, look at the
statistics, drop their passionate affair with Russian psychiatry, conceive
an ideal scene of a productive America, re-channel welfare monies into
decent public works to give people jobs and
44
improve productivity per capita, knock off foreign funds and wars, give the
money to increasing the value of American resources and even now the US
would become all right. National production would catch up with destructive
inflation, money would return to value and an ideal national scene would be
approached. Even the militaryindustrial clique would be happy making
bulldozers instead of tanks and youth would have a future in sight instead
of a foreign-made grave. The odd part of it is, even the Senate and House
would vote for such a program as their own statistic today is how much
federal money can they bring home to their own states.
The only ones that would resist are the people who are the ones causing
the above outpoints and who knowingly or unknowingly serve other masters
than the US. And that's a simple security problem after all.
I have put the example on a large canvas just to show that the steps of
handling departures are the same for all situations large or great.
When done this way, by the steps mentioned in the Data Series, big
situations can be analyzed as well as little ones.
Available resources and all that play a part in getting the solution
into effect. But the cost in time and action of the original effort to
introduce the cycle of revertment to an ideal scene is not anywhere near as
costly as letting the departure continue.
The EASIER thing to do in all cases is to work out the ideal scene,
survey the existing scene for outpoints, work out statistics that should
exist, find out WHY the departure, program a gradient solution back to the
ideal, settle the practical aspects of it and go about it.
LOSING ONE'S WAY
One's direction is lost to the degree one fails to work out the ideal
scene.
It is so easy to toss off an "ideal scene" that is not the ideal scene
that one can begin with a false premise.
As he tries to work with an incorrect "ideal scene" for an activity he
may fail and grow discouraged without recognizing that he is already
working with an omitted datum-the real ideal scene for that activity.
This is a major reason one can lose one's way in handling a situation.
Also in trying to find a WHY of departure one may refuse to admit that
something he himself did was the reason for the departure-or why the ideal
scene never took place. It requires quite a bit of character to recognize
one's own errors; it is much easier to find them in a neighbor. Thus one
may choose the wrong WHY, for this and other reasons.
Failures to examine the scene, reasonableness which causes blindness to
the obvious, errors of penetration and defensive reasons not to admit it
all impede a proper analysis.
The existing scene may be missing in one's view because one doesn't
really look at it or because one has no correct ideal scene for it.
Many would rather blame or justify than be honest. Others would rather
criticize than work.
But this all adds up to outpoints in the examination itself.
If one keeps at it one will however arrive at the right answers with
regard to any scene.
BUILDING THE IDEAL SCENE
To suppose one can instantly hit upon an ideal scene for any activity
without further test is to be very fond of one's own prejudices.
45
There is however a test of whether you have the ideal scene or not.
Can you staticize it?
Strangely, but inevitably, since we live in the physical universe where
there is both time and association of beings with beings and the physical
universe and the physical universe with itself, there is a production-
consumption factor in all living.
There seems to be a ratio between producing and consuming, and
establishing it would probably resolve that strange subject, economics, as
well as social welfare and other things.
It seems to be fatal to consume without producing. Many social
observations teach us this.
Evidently one cannot, at the physical universe level, produce without
consuming. And it seems that it is destructive to produce only and consume
too little. One can produce far more than one consumes. apparently, but
cannot consume far more than one produces.
This seems to be true of groups.
Some dreamers puffing on a hash pipe of unreality believe one can really
be happy producing nothing and consuming everything. The idyllic ideal of a
paradise where no one produces has been tried.
In interviewing secretaries in New York I found the larger percentage
had the personal ideal scene of "marrying a millionaire." Aside from there
not being that many millionaires, the dream of idle luxury forever was so
far from any possible ideal scene that it was busy ruining their lives and
giving their current male escorts a life of critical hell. One, having
married a boy who was fast on the road to becoming a millionaire, was so
dissatisfied with him not being one right now that she ruined his life and
hers.
In short, it sounds nice, but having met a few who did marry
millionaires, I can attest that they were either not producing and failing
as beings or were working themselves half to death.
These no-production dreams, like the harp in heaven, lead at best to
suicidal boredom. Yet Madison Avenue's ads would have one believe that one
and all should own all manner of cloth, wood and metal just to be alive.
A whole civilization can break down, flop, on propaganda of no-
production, total consumption. The sweat that flies off a "workers'
paradise" would rival the Mississippi!
There is some sort of balanced ratio and it favors apparently, for pride
and life and happiness, higher production of something than consumption.
When it gets too unbalanced in values, something seems to happen.
The unhappiness and tumult in current society is oddly current with the
Keynesian economic theory of creating want. It's a silly theory and has
lately become to be abandoned. But it was in vogue forty years or more, as
I recall. It produced the "welfare era" of the psychiatrist and the total
slavery of the taxpayer!
So, whatever the economics of it, an ideal scene apparently has to have
a statistic or the whole thing caves in, either from lack of continuity in
time, from disinterest, or from plain lack of supply.
Death is possibly, could be in part, a cessation of interested
production.
Hard pressed, a living being dreams of some free time. Give him too much
and he begins to crave action and will go into production and if blocked
from doing so will tend to cave in. Loss of a job depresses people way out
of proportion and subsequent declines often trace back to it.
Destructive activities carry their own self-death. The state of veterans
after wars is not always traced to wounds or privation. Destructive acts
put a brand on a man.
46
Some of this is answered by the absence of production.
IDEAL SCENE AND STAT
Whatever the facts and economic rules may be about production and the
ideal scene, it would seem to be the case, sufficient at least for our
purposes, that this rule holds good:
THE CORRECTLY STATED IDEAL SCENE WILL HAVE A PRODUCTION STATISTIC.
The way one defines "production" in this is not necessarily so many
things made on an assembly line. That's an easy one.
It isn't just pairs of shoes. Production can be defined as the
regulation or safeguarding of it, the planning or the designing of it, a
lot, lot, lot of things.
A stat is a positive numerical thing that can be accurately counted and
graphed on a two-dimensional thing.
To test the correctness of an ideal scene, one should be able to assign
it a correct statistic.
If one can't figure out a statistic for it, then it probably is an
incorrectly stated ideal scene and will suffer from departures.
Wrong stats assigned the ideal scene will wreck it. A wrongly conceived
ideal scene will derail the activity quickly.
To understand something it is necessary to have a datum of comparable
magnitude. To understand logic one needs to be able to establish what is
illogic. One then has two things for comparison.
The ideal scene can be compared to an existing scene. This is one way to
establish the ideal scene. But both need a factor to keep them in reality.
To test the ideal scene for correctness one needs to be able to
formulate its statistic.
The exercise of testing the statement of the ideal scene, to keep it
real and not airy-fairy and unattainable, is to work out a realistic stat
for it.
One can go back and forth between the statistic and the stated ideal
scene, adjusting one, then the other until one gets an attainable statistic
that really does measure the validity of the stated ideal scene.
A statistic is a tight reality, a stable point. which is to measure any
departure from the ideal scene.
In setting a statistic one has to outguess all efforts to falsify it
(predict possible outpoints in collecting it) and has to see if following
the statistic would mislead anyone from the ideal scene.
So let's walk back to the shoe store.
Test statement of ideal scene: to make money.
Test statistic: pairs of shoes sold.
Now if you tried to marry up those two you'd get a prompt catastrophe.
The potential departure would be immediate.
We sell shoes at no profit to raise the stat, we make no money. We try
only to make money, we sell cheap shoes at high cost and our customers
don't come back and we don't make money.
So those two are both no good.
47
Departure would occur, indeed it already exists right in the badly
worked out ideal scene and the stat.
Test ideal scene: Cobblers are entitled to the shoes they make.
Test statistic: how many shoes cobbler makes.
So that's loopy!
Test ideal scene: all citizens furnished with shoes.
Test statistic: number of shoes given away.
Well, that's bonkers for a shoe store in any economic set-up. The
citizens for sure would have no shoes once the shoe store was empty, for if
everything is given away, who'd raise cows for hides or drive nails in
soles unless he had a gun held on him so what workers' paradise is this?
Slave state for sure. So that's no ideal scene for a shoe store no matter
how "ideal" it looks to a do-gooder. Too airy-fairy. Since no shoes would
exist to be given away.
Test ideal scene: shoes for any worker who has coupons.
Test statistic: number of coupons collected.
Well, maybe. In some society. But can the shoe store get shoes for the
coupons? Maybe if there's enough economic police.
But then this would have to be a monopoly shoe store and the quality
would not be a factor,
So this must be an army quartermaster depot or a state monopoly. If no
incentive were needed it would work. Sure would be hard on the corns but it
would barely work. Rather insecure though.
But this is a shoe store where people buy.
Test ideal scene: to provide workers with good shoes that can be
replaced from suppliers.
Test statistic: ??? Number of shoes from suppliers given to workers . .
. . Happy workers. . . ??? Amount of control that can be exerted on
suppliers . . . ??? Ah. Number of shoes supplied well-shod workers.
Okay, that's a QM depot. Now what's a shoe store?
And we probably get what was given in an earlier example:
Ideal scene: to provide people with shoes and continue in business for
owner's lifetime.
Statistic: percentage of citizens in area profitably shod by this store.
But even this would need to be played back and forth. And if this shoe
store was in a socialist country both might require amendment. And if it
was in a beach resort thronged with tourists who were also mostly
foreigners the ideal scene and statistic would suffer an immediate
departure and the store would fail, crash if the ideal scene were not
correctly stated and the statistic real. The class of tourist would have a
bearing on it.
Maybe the state has currency control demands on shopkeepers and requires
them to get in foreign currency or no new stock!
Thus You could get:
Ideal scene: engendering acquisitiveness for novelty footwear made in
this country.
Statistic: pairs of gift shoes bought by foreigners.
48
That sure would shift the whole atmosphere of the store!
Thus one plays the ideal scene against the statistic.
Maybe one can't find any ideal scene for the activity and no statistic
of any significance to anyone. Could be that the activity is totally
worthless even to oneself as a hobby. Although this opens the door to
cynicism or a lazy way of not doing anything about anything, it just could
be. Even a "reporter" who writes nothing could have an ideal scene and
statistic. But it would have to be really real even then. Like,
Ideal scene: unsuspected as a spy while accepted as a "reporter."
Statistic: cash collected for reports undetectedly delivered to my
government.
If that seems unreal as a scene the staff of TIME magazine recently held
a mass meeting protesting the use of TIME credentials for government
spying. "Nobody will talk to us anymore," the staff of that dying WFMH
mouthpiece wept.
So anything could have an ideal scene, even a police state.
Idealism has nothing to do with it.
VIABLE
The word "viable" means capable of living, able to live in a particular
climate or atmosphere.
Life over a period of time requires VIABILITY, or the ability to
survive.
Any organism or any group or any part of a group must have a potential
of survival. It must be viable-life-able.
This is true of any ideal scene. The statistic measures directly the
relative survival potential of the organism or its part.
This tells you the plain fact that life contains the essential purpose
of living, no matter how many misguided philosophers or generals may decree
otherwise.
The planetary population is now not fully viable since weapons exist
capable of making it a billiard ball at the whim of some madman.
The potential survival of the whole is of course an influence and
limitation on its parts.
Men who live "only for self" don't live.
An organism or group can live a dangerous life in that it risks its
survival. But is more of a threat than its enemies if it does not know or
adjust its ideal scene.
A military company, told on posters the ideal scene is all brag in the
bar with girls on each arm, who find in fact that their actual scene is
military police outside every bar with clubs and a real short life under
the orders of sadistically disinterested and inexpert government, is
presented with an instantly visible departure.
The government believed such posters were needful to get recruits and
did not realize that a truthfully stated scene and an effort to promote
survival to commanders would also have recruited and conscription needn't
be resorted to as the end product of lies.
Men will become part of the most onerous and dangerous groups imaginable
providing the purpose is there and stated and they have a chance of
survival.
The ideal scene of a nation worshipping death is that of a nation that
will not survive anyway. At least not as that nation.
A group or an organism must be viable. The state is relative to the time
the group needs to live to accomplish its purpose.
49
Each part of a group, in any ideal scene, should contribute viability to
the whole group.
Production of something is mandatory on any part of a group if the group
is to be fully viable.
Painting, writing, music, all have positive roles in a society. So
productivity, as is viability, can be seen as a very broad inclusive term.
The sub purposes of any group make up the sub-ideal scene of its various
parts.
In other words each part of a broad group has its own ideal scene and
its own statistic.
These combined bring about the broad group's ideal scene.
The statistics each lead to viability of the part and then the whole
group.
In reverse, with so many parts of a planet desirous of extinguishing so
many other parts, the viability of the planet becomes questionable.
In an organization each part has its own ideal scene and its own
statistic on up to the main ideal scene and the main statistic.
In practice one works back from the ideal scene of the group into its
smallest part, so that all lesser ideal scenes and lesser statistics mount
up to and bring about the main ideal scene and statistic.
Examining the lesser ideal scenes and statistics, one can find outpoints
first in how the whole thing is organized and then the main ideal scene and
the statistics and how the lesser ones bring it about.
Dominant is the viability of the whole. Where any part does not support
total viability it is an outpoint. Contributive is the viability of each
part and cohesive is the scheme in which the lesser ideal scenes and the
lesser statistics bring about the BIG ideal scene and the BIG statistic. If
this does not occur the nonsupportive lesser ideal scene or statistic is an
outpoint.
Groups that falter have to have all this restudied. As departures did
occur, the organization itself, as part of any action, must be reexamined
against experience and new greater and lesser ideal scenes and statistics
must be worked out for it and put into use.
Agreement of the group is a necessary ingredient as many reformers have
learned, often too late, and as many groups have seen, also generally too
late.
The trick is to correct the ideal scene and statistic and all lesser
ones of the group while it is still alive.
After that one can have better dependence upon them and keep the
statistics up and the purpose going forward.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.rd.nf Copyright c 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
50
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 JULY 1970
Remimeo
Data Series 14
WORKING AND MANAGING
By actual experience in working and managing in many activities I can
state flatly that the most dangerous worker-manager thing to do is to work
or manage from something else than statistics.
Interpersonal relations with many strata of many societies in many lands
with many activities demonstrates plainly that Man's largest and most
unjust fault consists wholly of acting on opinion.
Opinions can be as varied as the weather in Washington, all on the same
subject. When one says "opinion" one is dealing with that morass of false
reports and prejudices which make up the chaos of current social orders.
Some seek an answer in status. "If one has STATUS one is safe" is about
as frail as a house of cards. Ask some recently deposed dictator or
yesterday's idol what his status was worth. Yet many work exclusively for
status. In Spain it is enough to have an executive degree. One doesn't have
to do any executiving. Work at it? Caramba no!
In capitalisms it is enough to be an heir and in communisms it is only
necessary to be the son of a commissar. Work? Nyet.
Revolts are protests against idle status. Where are the kings of
yesteryear?
Riding along on the last generation's statistics is as fatal as a diet
of thin air.
Undeserved status is a false statistic. Nothing is more bitterly
resented, unless it is a statistic earned without status by those who live
by status alone!
William Stieber, the most skilled intelligence chief of the 19th
century, who won the Franco-Prussian war for Bismarck, was hated by German
officers because he was not a proper officer but a civilian!
When German officers took over German intelligence they lost two wars in
a row and the caste is very unlamentedly dead.
So long as "character" can be reviled, so long as "opinion" is used, so
long as governments run on rumors and false reports, the social scene will
continue to be a mess.
You will not believe it but governments think newspaper stories are
"public opinion." One US President was astounded to be given a wildly
enthusiastic public reception at an airport. The press had been hammering
him for a year and the poor fellow thought it was "public opinion." Texts
on public relations remark this strange governmental fixation on believing
the press.
That means all a nation's enemies have to do is bribe or hire some
underpaid reporters or sernibankrupt publishers, and voila! it can steer
the government any way it wishes!
Do a survey on any personality or subject and the conflicts in opinion
are revealed as fantastic.
Seven witnesses to one street accident will even give seven conflicting
accounts.
Thus this whole field of "opinion" and "reports" is a quicksand
endangering both personal repute and management skill.
It is so bad that wars and revolutions stem directly from the use of
opinion and the neglect of statistics.
In a chaos it is necessary to set up one point or terminal which is
stable before one can really decide anything much less get anything done.
51
A statistic is such a stable point. One can proceed from it and use it
to the degree that it is a correct statistic.
One can detect then, when things start to go wrong well before they
crash.
Using opinion or random rumors or reports one can go very wrong indeed.
In fact, using these without knowing the statistics one can smash a life or
crash a group.
The US Navy operates on the social attainments and civilized behavior of
their people.
. naval officer is promoted on the basis of his amiability and the
social skill of his wife!
. clerk is promoted because he marries the boss's daughter.
. governor is elected because he could play a guitar!
This is a whirlwind of chaos because of the falseness of the statistics
used.
So the stat used is itself an outpoint in each case. PREDICTION
Outpoints are more than useful in prediction.
The whole reason one does a data analysis and a situation analysis is to
predict.
The biggest outpoint would be a missing ideal scene, the next biggest
would be a correct statistic for it.
If these are missing then prediction can become a matter of telling
fortunes with bamboo sticks.
One predicts in order to continue the viability of an organism, an
individual, a group, an organization, a state or nation or planet, or to
estimate the future of anything.
The more outpoints the less future.
A disaster could be said to be a totality of outpoints in final and
sudden culmination.
This gives one a return to chaos.
The closer one approaches a disaster the more outpoints will turn up.
Thus the more outpoints that turn up the closer one is approaching a
disaster.
When the outpoints are overwhelming a condition of death is approached.
By being able to predict, the organism or individual or group can
correct the outpoints before disaster occurs.
Each sphere of activity has its own prediction.
A group of different activities with a common goal can be predicted by
the outpoints turning up in parts of the general activity.
In theory if all parts of a main group or organization had an ideal
scene for each, a statistic and an intense interest in maintaining the
ideal scene and statistic of each part, the survival would be infinite.
Any group or organism or individual is somewhat interdependent upon its
neighbors, on other groups and individuals. It cannot however put them
right unless it itself has reached some acceptable level of approach to its
ideal scenes.
The conflict amongst organisms, individuals and groups does not
necessarily add up to "the survival of the fittest," whatever that meant.
It does however mean that in such conflict the best chance of survival goes
to the individual, organism or group that best approaches and maintains its
ideal scene, lesser ideal scenes, statistic and lesser statistics.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.ntm.nf Copyright @ 1970,1974 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
52
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 8 AUGUST 1970
Rernimeo
Data Series 15
WRONG TARGET
There is an additional specific outpoint.
It is WRONG TARGET.
This means in effect AN INCORRECT SELECTION OF AN OBJECTIVE TO ATTEMPT
OR ATTACK.
Example: Josie Ann has been sitting in the house reading. Her brother
Oscar has been playing ball in the yard. A window breaks. Josie Ann's
mother rushes into the room, sees Josie Ann and the ball on the floor,
spanks Josie Ann.
This outpoint contains the element, amongst other things of injustice.
There is another version of this:
Example: A firm has its premises flooded. The manager promptly insists
on buying fire insurance.
Example: The people of Yangville are starving due to food scarcity in
the land. The premier borrows 65 million pounds to build a new capital and
palace.
Example: The government is under attack and riot and civil disorder
spreads. The government officials campaign to put down all "rightists" for
trying to establish law and order.
Example: A man is beaten and robbed on the main street of a town. The
police demand to know why he was there and put him in jail for a long
period of investigation.
Example: The multibillion dollar drug cartels push out 65 tons of habit-
forming hard drugs. A government campaigns against cigarettes.
Example: A boy wants to be an accountant. His family forces him to join
the army as a career.
It is noted that the very insane often attack anyone who seeks to help
them.
This outpoint is very fundamental as an illogic and is very useful.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:rr.rd.nf Copyright 0 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
53
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 19 SEPTEMBER 1970
Issue I
Remimeo
Executive Hats
Ethics Hats
Data Series 16
INVESTIGATORY PROCEDURE
Correction of things which are not wrong and neglecting things which are
not right puts the tombstone on any org or civilization.
In auditing when one reviews or "corrects" a case that is running well,
one has trouble. It is made trouble.
Similarly on the third dynamic, correcting situations which do not exist
and neglecting situations which do exist can destroy a group.
All this boils down to CORRECT INVESTIGATION. It is not a slight skill.
It is THE basic skill behind any intelligent action.
SUPPRESSIVE JUSTICE
When justice goes astray (as it usually does) the things that have
occurred are
1. Use of justice for some other purpose than public safety (such
as maintaining a privileged group or indulging a fixed idea) or
2. Investigatory procedure.
All suppressive use of the forces of justice can be traced back to one
or the other of these.
Aberrations and hate very often find outlet by calling them "justice" or
"law and order." This is why it can be said that Man cannot be trusted with
justice.
This or just plain stupidity brings about a neglect of intelligent
investigatory procedures. Yet all third dynamic sanity depends upon correct
and unaberrated investigatory procedures. Only in that way can one
establish causes of things. And only by establishing causes can one cease
to be the effect of unwanted situations.
It is one thing to be able to observe. It is quite another to utilize
observations so that one can get to the basis of things.
SEQUENCES
Investigations become necessary in the face of outpoints or pluspoints.
Investigations can occur out of idle curiosity or particular interest.
They can also occur to locate the cause of pluspoints.
Whatever the motive for investigation the action itself is conducted by
sequences.
If one is incapable mentallv of tracing a series of events or actions,
one cannot investigate.
Altered sequence is a primary block to investigation.
54
At first glance, omitted data would seem to be the block. On the
contrary, it is the end product of an investigation and is what pulls an
investigation along-one is looking for omitted data.
An altered sequence of actions defeats any investigation. Examples: We
will hang him and then conduct a trial. We will assume who did it and then
find evidence to prove it. A crime should be provoked to find who commits
them.
Any time an investigation gets back to front, it will not succeed.
Thus if an investigator himself has any trouble with seeing or
visualizing sequences of actions he will inevitably come up with the wrong
answer.
Reversely, when one sees that someone has come up with a wrong or
incomplete answer one can assume that the investigator has trouble with
sequences of events or, of course, did not really investigate.
One can't really credit that Sherlock Holmes would say "I have here the
fingerprint of Mr. Murgatroyd on the murder weapon. Have the police arrest
him. Now, Watson, hand me a magnifying glass and ask Sgt. Doherty to let us
look over his fingerprint files."
If one cannot visualize a series of actions, like a ball bouncing down a
flight of stairs or if one cannot relate in proper order several different
actions with one object into a proper sequence, he will not be able to
investigate.
If one can, that's fine.
But any drilling with attention-shifting drills will improve one's
ability to visualize sequences. Why? Stuck attention or attention that
cannot confront alike will have trouble in visualizing sequences.
INVESTIGATIONS
In HCO Policy Letter I I May 1965 Ethics Officer Hat, HCO Policy Letter
I Sept 1965 Issue VII, HCO Policy Letter I Feb 1966 Issue 11 and pages 3,
4, 5 and 6 of the Manual of Justice, the subject of investigation as
applied to justice is given.
It will be noted that these are sequences of actions.
Neglect of these items or a failure to know and follow them led here and
there to suppressive uses of justice or to permitting orgs to be suppressed
by special interest groups in the society.
Indeed, had these been in and followed we would have had a great deal
less trouble than we did.
But investigation is not monopolized by law and order.
All betterment of life depends on finding out pluspoints and why and
reenforcing them, locating outpoints and why and eradicating them.
This is the successful survival pattern of living. A primitive who is
going to survive does just that and a scientist who is worth anything does
just that.
The fisherman sees seagulls clustering over a point on the sea. That's
the beginning of a short sequence, point No. 1. He predicts a school of
fish, point No. 2. He sails over as sequence point No. 3. He looks down as
sequence point No. 4. He sees fish as point No. 5. He gets out a net as
point No. 6. He circles the school with the net, No. 7. He draws in the
net, No. 8. He brings the fish on board, No. 9. He goes to port, No. 10.
55
He sells the fish, No. 11. That's following a pluspoint-cluster of
seagulls.
A sequence from an outpoint might be: Housewife serves dinner. Nobody
eats the cake, No. 1, she tastes it, No. 2, she recognizes soap in it, No.
3. She goes to kitchen, No. 4. She looks into cupboard, No. 5. She finds
the soap box upset, No. 6. She sees the flour below it, No. 7. She sees
cookie jar empty, No. 8. She grabs young son, No. 9. She shows him the set-
up, No. 10. She gets a confession, No. 11. And No. 12 is too painful to
describe.
Unsuccessful investigators think good fish catches are sent by God and
that when cake tastes like soap it is fate. They live in unsuccessful
worlds of deep mystery.
They also hang the wrong people
DISCOVERY
All discoveries are the end product of a sequence of investigatory
actions that begin with either a pluspoint or an outpoint.
Thus all knowledge proceeds from pluspoints or outpoints observed.
And all knowledge depends on an ability to investigate.
And all investigation is done in correct sequence.
And all successes depend upon the ability to do these things.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.rd.nf Copyright c 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
56
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 19 SEPTEMBER 1970
Issue 11
Remimeo
Data Series 17
NARROWING THE TARGET
When you look at a broad field or area it is quite overwhelming to have
to find a small sector that might be out.
The lazy and popular way is to generalize "They're all coniused." "The
organization is rickety." "They're doing great."
That's all very well but it doesn't get you much of anywhere.
The way to observe so as to find out what to observe is by discarding
areas.
This in fact was the system I used to make the discoveries which became
Dianetics and Scientology.
It was obvious to me that it would take a few million years to examine
all of life to find out what made it what it was.
The first step was the tough one. I looked for a common denominator that
was true for all life forms. I found they were attempting to survive.
With this datum I outlined all areas of wisdom or knowledge and
discarded those which had not much assisted Man to survive.
This threw away all but scientific methodology, so I used that for
investigatory procedure.
Then, working with that, found mental image pictures. And working with
them, found the human spirit as different from them.
By following up the workable one arrived at the processing actions
which, if applied, work, resulting in the increase of ability and freedom.
By following up the causes of destruction one arrived at the points
which had to be eradicated.
This is of course short-handing the whole cycle enormously. But that is
the general outline.
Survival has been isolated as a common denominator to successful actions
and succumb has been found as the common denominator of unsuccessful
actions. So one does not have to reestablish these.
From there, to discover anything bad or good, all one has to do is
discard sterile areas to get a target necessary for investigation.
One looks broadly at the whole scene. Then discards sections of it that
would seem unrewarding. He will then find himself left with the area that
contains the key to it.
This is almost easier done than described.
Example: One has the statistics of a nine division org. Eight are
normal. One isn't. So he investigates the area of that one. In
investigating the one he discards all normal bits. He is left with the
abnormal one that is the key.
This is true of something bad or something good.
A wise boy who wanted to get on in life would discard all the men who
weren't getting on and study the one who was. He would come up with
something he could use as a key.
57
A farmer who wanted to handle a crop menace would disregard all the
plants doing all right and study the one that wasn't. Then, looking
carefully he would disregard all the should be's in that plant and wind up
with the shouldn't be. He'd have the key.
Sometimes in the final look one finds the key not right there but way
over somewhere else.
The boy, studying the successful man, finds he owed his success to
having worked in a certain bank seven states away from there.
The farmer may well find his hired man let the pigs out into the crop.
But both got the reason why by the same process of discarding wider
zones.
Pluspoints or outpoints alike take one along a sequence of discoveries.
Once in a purple moon they mix or cross.
Example: Gross income is up. One discards all normal stats. Aside from
gross income being up only one other stat is down-new names. Investigation
shows that the public executives were off post all week on a tour and that
was what raked in the money. Conclusion-send out tours as well as man the
public divisions.
Example: Upset is coming from the camp kitchen. Obvious outpoints.
Investigation discloses a 15-year-old cook holding the job solo for 39
field hands! Boy is he pluspoint. Get him some help!
DRAWN ATTENTION
Having attention dragged into an area is about the way most people
"investigate." This puts them at effect throughout.
When a man is not predicting he is often subjected to outpoints that
leap up at him. Conversely when outpoints leap up at one unexpectedly he
knows he better do more than gape at them. He is already behindhand in
investigating. Other signs earlier existed which were disregarded.
ERRORS
The usual error in viewing situations is not to view them widely enough
to begin with.
One gets a despatch which says Central Files don't exist.
By now keeping one's attention narrowly on that, one can miss the whole
scene.
To just order Central Files put back in may fail miserably. One has been
given a single observation. It is merely an outpoint: Central Files
omitted.
There is no WHY.
You follow up "no CF" and you may find the Registrar is in the Public
Division and Letter Registrars never go near a file and the category of
everyone in CF is just ---beentested." You really investigate and you find
there's no HCO Exec Sec or Dissem Sec and there hasn't been one for a year.
The cycle of "outpoint, correct, outpoint, correct, outpoint, correct"
will drown one rapidly and improve nothing! But it sure makes a lot of
useless work and worry.
WISDOM
Wisdom is not a fixed idea.
It is knowing how to use your wits.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.rd.nf Copyright v 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
58
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 19 SEPTEMBER 1970
Issue III
Remimeo
Data Series 18
SUMMARY OF OUTPOINTS
OMITTED DATA
An omitted anything is an outpoint.
This can be an omitted person, terminal, object, energy, space, time,
form, sequence, or even an omitted scene. Anything that can be omitted that
should be there is an outpoint.
This is easily the most overlooked outpoint as it isn't there to
directly attract attention.
On several occasions I have found situation analyses done which arrived
at no WHY that would have made handling possible but which gave a false Why
that would have upset things if used. In each case the outpoint that held
the real clue was this one of an omitted something. In a dozen cases it was
omitted personnel each time. One area to which orders were being issued had
no one in it at all. Others were undermanned, meaning people were missing.
In yet another case there were no study materials at all. In two other
cases the whole of a subject was missing in the area. Yet no one in any of
these cases had spotted the fact that it was an omitted something that had
caused a whole activity to decay. People were working frantically to remedy
the general situation. None of them noticed the omissions that were the
true cause of the decay.
In crime it is as bad to omit as it is to commit. Yet no one seems to
notice the omissions as actual crimes.
Man, trained up in the last century to be a stimulus-response animal,
responds to the therenesses and doesn't respond as uniformly to not-
therenesses.
This opens the door to a habit of deletion or shortening which can
become quite compulsive.
In any analysis which fails to discover a WHY one can safely conclude
the Why is an omission and look for things that should be there and aren't.
ALTERED SEQUENCE
Any things, events, objects, sizes, in a wrong sequence is an outpoint.
The number series 3, 7, 1, 2, 4, 6, 5 is an altered sequence, or an
incorrect sequence.
Doing step two of a sequence of actions before doing step one can be
counted on to tangle any sequence of actions.
The basic outness is no sequence at all. This leads into FIXED IDEAS. It
also shows up in what is called disassociation, an insanity. Things
connected to or similar to each other are not seen as consecutive. Such
people also jump about subjectwise without relation to an obvious sequence.
Disassociation is the extreme case where things that are related are not
seen to be and things that have no relation are conceived to have.
Sequence means linear (in a line) travel either through space or time
or both.
59
A sequence that should be one and isn't is an outpoint.
A "sequence" that isn't but is thought to be one is an outpoint.
A cart-before-the-horse out of sequence is an outpoint.
One's hardest task sometimes is indicating an inevitable sequence into
the future that is invisible to another. This is a consequence. "If you saw
off the limb you are sitting on you will of course fall." Police try to
bring this home often to people who have no concept of sequence; so the
threat of punishment works well on well-behaved citizens and not at all on
criminals since they often are criminals because they can't think in
sequence-they are simply fixated. "If you kill a man you will be hanged,"
is an indicated sequence. A murderer fixated on revenge cannot think in
sequence. One has to think in sequences to have correct sequences.
Therefore it is far more common than one would at first imagine to see
altered sequences since persons who do not think in sequence de not see
altered sequences in their own actions or areas.
Visualizing sequences and drills in shifting attention can clean this up
and restore it as a faculty.
Motion pictures and TV were spotted by a recent writer as fixating
attention and not permitting it to travel. Where one had TV raised
children, it would follow, one possibly would have people with a tendency
to altered sequences or no sequences at all.
DROPPED TIME
Time that should be noted and isn't would be an outpoint of "dropped
time."
It is a special case of an omitted datum.
Dropped time has a peculiarly ferocious effect that adds up to utter
lunacy.
A news bulletin from 1814 and one from 1922 read consecutively without
time assigned produces otherwise undetectable madness.
A summary report of a situation containing events strung over half a
year without saying so can provoke a reaction not in keeping with the
current scene.
In madmen the present is the dropped time, leaving them in the haunted
past. Just telling a group of madmen to "come up to present time" will
produce a few miraculous "cures." And getting the date of an ache or pain
will often cause it to vanish.
Time aberrations are so strong that dropped time well qualifies as an
outpoint.
FALSEHOOD
When you hear two facts that are contrary, one is a falsehood or both
are.
Propaganda and other activities specialize in falsehoods and provoke
great disturbance.
Willful or unintentional a falsehood is an outpoint. It may be a mistake
or a calculated or defensive falsehood and it is still an outpoint.
A false anything qualifies for this outpoint. A false being, terminal,
act, intention, anything that seeks to be what it isn't is a falsehood and
an outpoint.
Fiction that does not pretend to be anything else is of course not a
falsehood.
So the falsehood means "other than it appears" or "other than
represented."
One does not have to concern oneself to define philosophic truth or
reality to see that something stated or modeled to be one thing is in
actual fact something else and therefore an outpoint.
60
ALTERED IMPORTANCE
An importance shifted from its actual relative importance, up or down,
is an outpoint.
Something can be assigned an importance greater than it has.
Something can be assigned an importance less than it has.
A number of things of different importances can be assigned a monotone
of importance.
These are all outpoints, three versions of the same thing.
All importances are relative to their actuality.
WRONG TARGET
Mistaken objective wherein one believes he is or should be reaching
toward A and finds he is or should be reaching toward B is an outpoint.
This is commonly mistaken identity. It is also mistaken purposes or
goals.
If we tear down X we will be okay often results in disclosure that it
should have been Y.
" Removing the slums" to make way for modern shops kills the tourist
industry. Killing the king to be free from taxation leaves the tax
collector alive for the next regime.
Injustice is usually a wrong target outpoint.
Arrest the drug consumer, award the drug company would be an example.
Military tactics and strategy are almost always an effort to coax the
selection of a wrong target by the enemy.
And most dislikes and spontaneous hates in human relations are based on
mistaken associations of Bill for Pete.
A large sum of aberration is based on wrong targets, wrong sources,
wrong causes.
Incorrectly tell a patient he has ulcers when he hasn't and he's hung
with an outpoint which impedes recovery.
The industry spent on wrong objectives would light the world for a
millennium.
SUMMARY
These are the fundamental outpoints required in data analysis and
situation analysis.
They have one infinity of variation. They should be very well known to
anyone seeking third dynamic sanity.
They are the basic illogics.
And while there may be others, these will serve.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.rd.nf Copyright 0 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
61
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 13 OCTOBER 1970
Issue 11
Remimeo
Data Series 19
THE REAL WHY
"WHY" as used in logic is subject to noncomprehension.
WHY = that basic outness found which will lead to a recovery of stats.
WRONG WHY = the incorrectly identified outness which when applied does
not lead to recovery.
A MERE EXPLANATION = a "Why" given as THE Why that does not open the
door to any recovery.
Example: A mere explanation: "The stats went down because of rainy
weather that week." So? So do we now turn off rain? Another mere
explanation: "The staff became overwhelmed that week." An order saying
"Don't overwhelm staff" would be the possible "solution" of some manager.
BUT THE STATS WOULDN'T RECOVER.
The real WHY when found and corrected leads straight back to improved
stats.
. wrong Why, corrected, will further depress stats.
. mere explanation does nothing at all and decay continues.
Here is a situation as it is followed up:
The stats of an area were down. Investigation disclosed there had been
sickness 2 weeks before. The report came in: "The stats were down because
people were sick." This was a mere explanation. Very reasonable. But it
solved nothing. What do we do now? Maybe we accept this as the correct Why.
And give an order, "All people in the area must get a medical exam and
unhealthy workers will not be accepted and unhealthy ones will be fired."
As it's a correction to a wrong Why, the stats really crash. So that's not
it. Looking further we find the real WHY. In the area there is no trained-
in org bd and a boss there gives orders to the wrong people which, when
executed, then hurt their individual stats. We org board the place and
groove in the boss and we get a stat recovery and even an improvement.
The correct WHY led to a stat recovery.
Here is another one. Stats are down in a school. An investigation comes
up with a mere explanation: "The students were all busy with sports." So
management says "No sports!" Stats go down again. A new investigation comes
up with a wrong Why: "The students are being taught wrongly." Management
sacks the dean. Stats really crash now. A further more competent
investigation occurs. It turns out that there were 140 students and only
the dean and one instructor! And the dean had other duties! We put the dean
back on post and hire two more instructors making three. Stats soar.
Because we got the right Why.
Management and organizational catastrophes and successes are ALL
explained by these three types of Why. An arbitrary is probably just a
wrong Why held in by law. And if so held in, it will crash the place.
62
One really has to understand logic to get to the correct WHY and must
really be on his toes not to use and correct a wrong WHY.
In world banking, where inflation occurs, finance regulations or laws
are probably just one long parade of wrong Whys. The value of the money and
its usefulness to the citizen deteriorate to such an extent that a whole
ideology can be built up (as in Sparta by Lycurgus who invented iron money
nobody could lift in order to rid Sparta of money evils) that knocks money
out entirely and puts nothing but nonsense in its place
Organizational troubles are greatly worsened by using mere explanations
(which lead to no remedies) or wrong Whys (which further depress stats).
Organizational recoveries come from finding the real WHY and correcting it.
The test of the real WHY is "When it is corrected, do stats recover?" If
they do that was it. And any other remedial order given but based on a
wrong Why would have to be cancelled quickly.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.rd.nf Copyright 0 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
63
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 26 NOVEMBER 1970
Remimeo
Data Series 20
MORE OUTPOINTS
While there could be many many oddities classifiable as outpoints, those
selected and named as such are major in importance whereas others are
minor.
WRONG SOURCE
"Wrong Source" is the other side of the coin of wrong target.
Information taken from wrong source, orders taken from the wrong source,
gifts or materiel taken from wrong source all add up to eventual confusion
and possible trouble.
Unwittingly receiving from a wrong source can be very embarrassing or
confusing, so much so that it is a favorite intelligence trick. Dept D in
East Germany, the Dept of Disinformation, has very intricate methods of
planting false information and disguising its source.
Technology can come from wrong source. For instance Leipzig University's
school of psychology and psychiatry opened the door to death camps in
Hitler's Germany. Using drugs these men apparently gave Hitler to the world
as their puppet. They tortured, maimed and slaughtered over 12,000,000
Germans in death camps. At the end of World War 11 these extremists formed
the "World Federation of Mental Health," which enlisted the American
Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association and
established "National Associations for Mental Health" over the world, cowed
news media, smashed any new technology and became the sole advisors to the
US government on "mental health, education and welfare" and the appointers
of all health ministers through the civilized world and through their
graduate Pavlov dominated Russian communist "mental health." This source is
so wrong that it is destroying Man, having already destroyed scores of
millions. (All statements given here are documented.)
Not only taking data from wrong source but officialdom from it can
therefore be sufficiently aberrated as to result in planetary insanity.
In a lesser level, taking a report from a known bad hat and acting upon
it is the usual reason for errors made in management.
CONTRARY FACTS
When two statements are made on one subject which are contrary to each
other, we have "contrary facts."
Previously we classified this illogic as a falsehood, since one of them
must be false.
But in doing data analysis one cannot offhand distinguish which is the
false faQt. Thus it becomes a special outpoint.
"They made a high of $12,000 that week" and "They couldn't pay staff"
occurring in the same time period gives us one or both as false. We may not
know which is true but we do know they are contrary and can so label it.
64
In interrogation this point is so important that anyone giving two
contrary facts becomes a prime suspect for further investigation. "I am a
Swiss citizen" as a statement from someone who has had a German passport
found in his baggage would be an example.
When two "facts" are contrary or contradictory we may not know which is
true but we do know they can't both be true.
Issued by the same org, even from two different people in that org, two
contradictory "facts" qualifies as an outpoint.
These two will be found useful in analysis.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.rd.nf Copyright 0 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
iw
65
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 15 MARCH 197 IRA
Remimeo Issue 11
Admin RE-REVISED 21 SEPTEMBER 1981
Students
Tech
Qual (Re-revised to return to original issue due
C/Ses to reinstatement of HCOB 28 Aug 70RB
HGCs HC OUTPOINT PLUSPOINT LISTS RB.
Cramming HCOB 24 July 70 DATA SERIES remains
Officerscancelled.)
(Revisions not in a different type style)
Data Series 21RA
DATA SERIES AUDITING
References:
HCOB 28 Aug 70RB HC OUTPOINT PLUSPOINT
Rev. & Reins. LISTS RB
27 Jan 81
HCO PL 30 Nov 76R ONLY SSO CAN TIP
Rev. 25 Apr 79
Whenever a student cannot grasp or retain the data of the DATA SERIES
policy letters, he must be audited on the HC OUTPOINT PLUSPOINT LISTS.
The reason for this is that he himself has OUTPOINTS and it is necessary
to audit him on this subject.
When the student has outpoints, it has been found that he has a terrible
time grasping or retaining the Data Series material.
This does not mean the student is in any way crazy. It just means he is
illogical and has outpoints in his thinking.
This will reflect as well in his other studies.
At the discretion of the SSO and C/S, the student may also be programmed
for Method One Word Clearing, the PRD, the Study Green Form or any of the
various student repairs, New Era Dianetics, etc. He can also be given Super
Power when released.
An individual program is worked out for the student using the available
tech so that he can master the Data Series material.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Updated by
Mission Issues Revision
Accepted by the
BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA
BDCSC:LRH:JM:bk.gm Copyright@ 1971, 1981 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
66
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 31 JANUARY 1972
Remimeo
Data Series 22
THE WHY IS GOD
When beings operate mainly on illogics, they are unable to conceive of
valid reasons for things or to see that effects are directly caused by
things they themselves can control.
The inability to observe and find an actual useable WHY is the downfall
of beings and activities. This is factually the WHY of people not finding
WHYs and using them.
The prevalence of historical Man's use of "fate," "kismet" (fatalism),
superstition, fortune telling, astrology and mysticism confirms this.
Having forgotten to keep seed grain for the spring, the farmer starves
the following year and when asked WHY he is starving says it is the Gods,
that he has sinned or that he failed to make sacrifice. In short, unable to
think, he says "The Why is God."
This condition does not just affect primitives or backward people.
All through the most modern organizations you can find "The WHY is God"
in other forms.
By believing that it is the fault of other divisions or departments, a
staff member does not look into his own scene. "The reason 1 cannot load
the lumber is because the Personnel Section will not find and hire people."
It does not seem to occur to this fellow that he is using a WHY which he
can't control so it is not a WHY for his area. It does not move the
existing to the ideal scene. Thus it is not a WHY for him. Yet he will use
it and go on nattering about, it. And the lumber never gets loaded. The
real WHY for him more likely would be, "I have no right to hire day
laborers. 1 must obtain this right before my area breaks down totally," or
"My department posts are too specialized. 1 need to operate on all-hands
actions on peak loads."
A Course Supervisor who says, "I haven't got any students because Ethics
keeps them for weeks and Cramming for months" is using a "The WHY is God."
As he cannot control Ethics or Cramming from his post his WHY is illogical.
The real WHY is probably "I am not mustering all my students daily and
keeping them on course. If they are ordered to Ethics or Cramming they must
be right here studying except for the actual minutes spent in Ethics and
Cramming."
But this does not just apply on small activities. It applies to whole
nations. "The reason we Germans cannot advance is because England is
against us." This wrong WHY has killed many tens of millions in two world
wars.
Intelligence organizations are often almost dedicated to "the Why is
over there." It seldom is.
Most staffs of orgs, when pay is poor, are completely addicted to over-
thereness. In one org, the Finance Banking Officer was continuously
hammered to "give more money" by the people who were responsible for making
the money and yet who were not raising a finger to do so. An actual survey
of four org staffs showed that only 2% were aware that their pay depended
upon the org gross income!
67
Thus survival is very closely tied to logic. If one finds he is sinking
into apathy over his inability to get his job done, it is certain that he
is operating on self-conceived wrong WHYs in areas that he cannot ever hope
to control.
And in living any life, most major points of decline can be traced to
the person's operating on Whys that do not allow him to improve his own
scene.
The Greek cut open the guts of birds to find the WHY. He called this
"divination" or "augury." Don't look now. but that civilization has long
been dead!
Just as anyone will be whose illogic leads him to over-thereness to find
his Whys.
Strength and power in the individual consists of being logical enough to
find WHYs he can use to advance his existing scene toward the ideal scene.
The Why is NOT God. It lies with YOU and your ability to be logical.
God helps those who help themselves.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:ne.rd.nf Copyright 0 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
68
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 17 FEBRUARY 1972
Remimeo
Data Series 23
PROPER FORMAT AND CORRECT ACTION
When doing an evaluation, one can become far too fixated on outpoints
and miss the real reason one is doing an evaluation in the first place.
To handle this, it is proper form to write up an evaluation so as to
keep in view the reason one is doing one.
This is accomplished by using this form SITUATION:
DATA:
STATS: WHY: IDEAL SCENE:
HANDLING:
CONSISTENCY
The whole of it should concern itself with the same general scene, the
same subject matter. This is known as CONSISTENCY. One does not have a
situation about books, data about bicycles, stats of another person, a WHY
about another area, a different subject for ideal scene and handling for
another activity.
The situation, whether good or bad, must be about a certain subject,
person or area, the data must be about the same, the stats are of that same
thing, the WHY relates to that same thing, the ideal scene is about the
scene of that same thing and the handling handles that thing and especially
is regulated by that Why.
A proper evaluation is all of a piece.
SITUATION
First, to do an evaluation, some situation must have come to notice.
There is a report or observation that is out of the ordinary.
This "coming to notice" occurs on any line. Usually it is fairly major,
affecting a large portion of the area, but it can be minor.
So OBSERVATION in general must be continuous for situations to be noted.
To just note a situation and act on it is out of sequence as it omits
evaluation. You can be elated or shocked uselessly by noting a situation
and then not doing any evaluation,
It is the hallmark of a rank amateur or idiot to act on reports without
any evaluation.
So, the first step is noting, from general alertness, a situation
exists.
A situation is defined as a not expected state of affairs. It is either
very good or it is very bad.
69
If it is very good it must be evaluated and a Why found so one can even
upgrade an ideal scene.
If it is very bad, it must be evaluated and a Why found so that it can
be handled to more closely approach the ideal scene.
DATA
Data is the information one has received that alerts one to the
situation.
Intelligence systems use various (mainly faulty) methods of "evaluating"
data so as to "confirm it." They do this uniformly from reports. No matter
how many reports one may see there is always a question as to their truth.
Intelligence chiefs have started most wars (US vs. Germany 1917) or failed
to start them in time (US vs. Japan 1936) by depending on "authoritative
sources," "skilled observers," "valid documents" and other confetti they
class as "reports" or "documents."
As noted above, the "raw document" or "raw materials" as they are called
have led, when accepted, to the most terrifying catastrophes. British
Admiral Hall, without permission of the British government, leaked the
famous "Zimmerman telegram" to US President Wilson and stampeded the US
into World War 1. The alleged German "instructions" to their US Ambassador
"intercepted" by Hall were passed on with confidence tricks and President
Wilson, elected to keep the US out of the war, being no great evaluator,
dived overboard on one flimsy questionable report and carried America into
the disaster of two world wars and a communist supremacy.
The US was lulled by false Japanese assurances and false data on the
smallness of Japanese armaments and considered the country no danger. The
true situation would have led to a US declaration of war in 1936! Before
Japan could sink the whole Pacific fleet in one raid and cause 41/2 years
of war and open all of China to communist supremacy.
These are just a couple of the thousands of disasters in international
affairs brought about by a pathetic reliance on reports or documents.
If you knew the game well, with a half a dozen agents and a document
factory, you could have half the countries of the planet in turmoil.
Because they rely on reports and "authoritative sources" and "expert
opinion" instead of data as viewed in this Data Series.
If one does not court disaster and failures one does NOT rely on
reports, but an absence of reports or a volume of reports carefully
surveyed for outpoints and counted.
To do this one must be VERY skilled at spotting outpoints. Most people
confuse simple errors with actual outpoints.
You can get so good at this you can recognize outpoints and pluspoints
at a fast glance over reports.
Essentially, "data" regarded from the angle of outpoints is a lack of
consistency. "Our Div 2 is doing very well" doesn't go with gross income
$2.
This gives you a guideline, the "string to pull" (see investigation
checksheet on following down things you just don't understand, the first
emergence of the Data Series).
So the DATA you give is not a lot of reports. It is a brief summary of
the "strings pulled" on the outpoint or pluspoint route to finally get the
Why.
Example: (from a situation where an org was going broke) "The sign-ups
reported for service and new names to Central Files were both high yet
gross income was down. An investigation of the service area showed no
backlogs and no new customers with the staff idle. Tech Services was fully
staffed. Examining complement showed no one in the Department of Income.
People were signed up but there was no one to receive the money." The WHY
of course was a wrong complement particularly NO CASHIER and an Executive
Director neglecting his duties.
Example: (on a situation of a stat soaring) "The Promo Dept had very
down stats with no promo going out. Bulk mail was low. Div 6 was idle, yet
the GI was soaring. Nothing in the org could be found to account for it.
Investigation of what promo incoming public had, showed that the promo was
coming from a lower level org promoting itself as a route to upper level
services." The WHY of course was an effective promo campaign being run
OUTSIDE the org. And one could bolster that up and get the org active too.
70
DATA, then, is the Sherlock Holming of the trail that gave the WHY. It
at once reflects the command the evaluator has of the DATA SERIES. And his
own cleverness.
Sometimes they come in a sudden blue flash a yard long, a piece of
insight into what MUST be going on if these outpoints add up this way.
Rapid investigation of further data on this trail proves or disproves the
flash of insight. One does NOT run on insight alone (or crystal balls).
To one not trained and practiced in evaluation the finding of a REAL WHY
may look as mysterious as an airplane to an aborigine.
It is a fact that people who do not understand evaluation can get the
idea that management acts on personalities or whims or that management has
spies everywhere to know that the Distribution Secretary never came to
work.
To the expert it is easy. To the ignorant it looks very supernatural.
It is the TRAIL followed that counts.
This is what is required under "DATA."
STATS
Situations and DATA trails are supported by statistics.
Where statistics are not in numeral form this may be harder. Where they
are outright lies, this is an outpoint itself.
A person or nation without any statistic may be a puzzle at first but
statistical approximations can exist and be valid.
Statistics of CIA would be very hard to dig up. They don't even let the
US Congress in on it. But the deteriorating overseas influence of the US
would show that CIA was not batting any high average and that its data fed
to policy-makers (its avowed purpose) might well be false or misleading
causing policy errors that cause a deteriorating scene.
So statistics can be estimated by the scene itself even when absent in
numerical form.
England has lost its whole empire in a quarter of a century, without a
single defeat in war. This gives an adequate statistic for the government's
good sense or lack of it. It is at this writing losing even parts of the
homeland and is itself joining what might be called the Fourth Reich and so
will soon cease to exist as a political sovereignty. This statistic can
even be drawn as a dive-bombing down curve.
A deckhand's statistic may not exist on a chart but the areas he tends
do exist for view.
One either has a numerical statistic or a direct observation. One can
use both.
I once answered the question, "Why are paid completions high and gross
income low?" by finding that the "paid" completions stats were false.
So one statistic can be compared to another.
Three or more stats can be compared to each other and often lead
directly to a WHY.
The main point is DON'T ACT WITHOUT STATISTICAL DATA.
After a fine data analysis, one may well find the stats are quite normal
and there is NO situation.
One may have a great PR PR PR data analysis and collide with statistics
you'd need a submarine to read.
And one may have data that says the whole staff of Keokuk should be shot
without waiting for dawn and then discover that, by stats, they're doing
great.
And one can also do a data analysis that shows somebody should be
commended and prove it by stats and then discover belatedly the stats are
false and the guy should have been shot.
However, if one looks at all available stats after doing a data analysis
one may find they look good at a glance but are sour as green apples. One
could see a high lot of stats, GI, etc., and then see a cost stat that
shows someone is making $2 million at a cost of $4 million and that the
place is going straight into the garbage can.
71
DO NOT give a Why or recommend handling without inspecting the actual
stats. And DO NOT be thrown off a situation you are sure exists without
looking at ALL the stats. (Example: High hour interns' stats throw one off
interfering until one sees NO interns graduating and NO programs completed
by them.)
THE WHY
This is the jewel in the crown, the main dish at dinner, the gold mine
in the towering mountains of mystery.
A real WHY must lead to a bettering of the existing scene or (in the
case of a wonderful new scene) maintaining it as a new ideal scene.
Therefore the WHY must be something you can do something about. (See THE
WHY IS GOD policy letter.)
Thus the Why is limited by what you can control. It is NEVER that other
division or top management or the bumps on the moon.
Even if all this were true, the WHY must be something which
YOU CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT YOURSELF FROM YOUR LEVEL OF AUTHORITY OR
INITIATIVE that will lead to
THE IMPROVEMENT OF A POOR EXISTING SCENE TOWARD THE IDEAL SCENE.
The WHY is a special thing then. It is a key that opens the door to
effective improvement.
It is not a prejudice or a good idea. It is where all the analysis led.
And a REAL Why when used and handled and acted upon is like a magic
carpet. The scene at once becomes potentially better or gets maintained.
"Acting on a wrong Why" is the stuff of which coffins are made.
No matter how brilliant the program that follows, there it is, the same
old mud.
Wrong Whys work people half to death handling a program which will lay
ostrich eggs and rotten ones at that.
It will cost money and time that can't be afforded easily.
It will distract from the real tiger in the woods and let him roar and
eat up the goats while everyone is off chasing the ghosts which "really
were the cause of it all."
Wrong Whys are the tombstones of all great civilizations and unless
someone gears up the think will be the mausoleum of this one.
Do not think you won't get them. It takes 28,000 casualties in battle,
they say, to make a major general. Well it may take a few wrong Whys to
make an evaluator.
The evaluator who has done the evaluation is of course responsible for
it being correctly done and leading to the right conclusion and verified by
stats to give the correct real WHY.
And the real ones are often too incredible to have been arrived at in
any other way. Or they are so obvious no one noticed.
In one instance Whys were found by experts for six months on a certain
course without improving the flagrantly bad situation but actually messing
it up more until a huge real Why jumped out (the students had never been
trained on earlier levels) and the situation began to improve.
Using one Why for all situations can also occur and fads of Whys are
common. True, a Why often applies elsewhere. That's what gives us
technology including policy. But in any area of operation where a situation
is very abnormal the Why is likely to be very peculiar and too off the
ordinary to be grasped at once.
There can be an infinity of wrongnesses around just one rightness. Thus
there can be an infinity of wrong Whys possible with just one real Why that
will open the door.
For the real Why does open the door. With it on a good situation one can
maintain it and with a bad situation one can improve it.
Thus the REAL WHY is the vital arrival point to which evaluation leads.
72
THEIDEALSCENE
If a bad situation is a departure from the ideal scene and if a good
situation is attaining it or exceeding it, then the crux of any evaluation
is THE IDEAL SCENE for the area one is evaluating.
Viewpoint has a lot to do with the ideal scene.
To Russia a collapsed America is the ideal scene. To America a collapsed
Russia is an ideal scene.
To some have-not nations both Russia and the US competing at vast
expense for the favor of a coy petty ruler is the ideal scene to that
ruler.
To most other parts of the world both these major countries interested
only in their own affairs would be an ideal scene.
So, with viewpoint the ideal scene can be "bad" or "good."
The ideal scene is not necessarily big and broad. An intelligence
evaluator that gave the ideal scene as "a defeated enemy" on every
evaluation would be very inexpert.
By CONSISTENCY the ideal scene must be one for that portion of an
activity for which one is trying to find the Why.
Example: (Situation: renewed activity on a front held by one platoon.
Evaluation: No other points along the lines are active and a tank road
leads toward the front where the activity is. WHY: area being prepared for
a tank breakout.) IDEAL SCENE: an uninhabitable area in front of the
platoon. (Which could be done with napalm as there is a wood there and a
heavy crossfire maintained and a renewed supply of bazookas for the platoon
if the napalm didn't work.)
Example: (Situation: a lot of silence from Plant 22. Evaluation: no
trucks arriving with materials, no raw materials being sent by outside
suppliers, suppliers irate. WHY: The accounting office forgot to pay the
raw materials bill and the suppliers held up all further supplies.) THE
IDEAL SCENE: high credit rating and good accounts PR established with all
creditors. (And handling would include a recommendation for an evaluation
of the accounting office as to why it forgot and why there is no high
credit PR with a new ideal scene for that accounting office, which might be
a wholly different thing: IDEAL SCENE: an accounting office that enforces
income greater than outgo.)
By giving the IDEAL SCENE for every situation, the evaluator is not led
into a fatal contempt for the competence of all work actually being done.
The ideal scene clarifies for one and all whither we are going.
But even more important, the evaluation that includes an ideal scene
postulates a win from the viewpoint of those for whom it is being done or
for one's activities.
Sometimes when one gets to the ideal scene and writes it down he finds
his Why won't really lead to it, in which case he must get another Why or
familiarize himself with the scene in general to find out what he is trying
to send where.
In the case of an abnormally good situation one finds he has exceeded
what was formerly thought to be the ideal scene and must state a new one
entirely with the WHY concerned with how to maintain it.
Anyone reading a full evaluation in proper form can better estimate
whether the WHY and handling are workable if the IDEAL SCENE is there. And
sometimes it will be found that the evaluator is trying to do something
else entirely than what everyone else thinks is a correct attainment.
Thus it is a very healthy thing to include the ideal scene. It serves as
a discipline and incentive for the evaluator and those executing the
program.
HANDLING
Handling must be CONSISTENT with the situation, the evaluation, the Why
and the ideal scene.
Handling must be WITHIN THE CAPABILITIES of those who will do the
actions.
Handling must be WITHIN THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE.
Handling quite often but not always requires a BRIGHT IDEA. It is
peculiarly true that the less the resources available the brighter the idea
required to attain effective handling.
73
Handling must be SUPERVISED by one person who acts as a coordinator of
the program and a checker-offer and debug expert.
And last but most important handling must be EFFECTIVE AND FINAL.
The steps of handling are in program form. They are numbered 1-2-3, etc.
Or A-B-C, etc.
They can be in the sequence they will be done but this is mostly
important when one person or one team is going to do the whole thing step
by step.
These steps are called TARGETS.
Each part of the program (each TARGET) is assigned to someone to do or
to get done.
Care must be taken not to overload persons already loaded and where
this occurs
one appoints a special personnel or mission for that specific target. t
The supervision must see that each target gets fully done and no targets
not-done and no targets half-done.
It is up to supervision to keep track of all completions on a MASTER
sheet.
Supervision debugs those targets that bog or lag by finding in them a
Why, which may mean a rapid evaluation of that target to rephrase it or get
it clarified without altering its intended accomplishment.
Supervision can reassign a target.
PROJECTS
It is expected that any complex or extensive target will have a PROJECT
written for it by the person to whom it is assigned if not by the
originator.
By completing this project the target is DONE.
Often these projects have to be passed upon by a senior before being
begun.
COMPLIANCE
When the MASTER sheet shows all targets DONE (not not-done and not half-
done and not falsely reported) full situation handling can be expected.
REVIEW
When the supervisor reports all targets done, it is in the hands of fate
whether the situation will now be progressed toward or attain the ideal
scene.
The accuracy of the data, the skill of the evaluator, the correctness of
the WHY, the competence of the supervisor and the skill of those executing
the targets and the willingness of those receiving the effects of all this
activity (their human emotion and reaction) determine whether this
evaluation approaches or attains the ideal scene.
All such evaluations should be REVIEWED as soon as the actions have had
time to take effect.
An idiot optimism can suppose all is well and that it is needless to
review.
But if this WHY was wrong then the situation will deteriorate and a
worsening situation will be apparent.
Thus a sharp watch has to be set. No thirst for "always being right" or
arrogance about never being wrong must prevent an honest review.
WAS the ideal scene approached or attained?
Or was it a wrong Why and now is all Hades breaking loose?
Now we don't have just renewed insistence that the WHY was right and
that the program must go in in spite of all.
We have a wrong Why.
MAGIC
IT WILL BE FOUND THAT WHERE YOU HAVE A REAL WHY PEOPLE WILL COOPERATE
ALL OVER THE SCENE.
74
The only exception is where there are traitors around. But this is an
easy explanation, too often bought to excuse wrong Whys.
The Germans, when they found in World War II, how ineffective the
Italian intelligence service was, couldn't believe it, tried to improve it,
became convinced they were traitors, probably shot them in scores and took
the service over themselves. And lost Italy even more rapidly. Whatever the
right Why was, the Germans had the wrong one. And so does any executive who
has to shoot everybody-he just can't find the right Whys.
It is NO disgrace to find a wrong Why. It is only a disgrace not to keep
trying on and on until one does find it. Then the clouds open, the sun
shines, the birds pour out their souls in purest melody and the ideal scene
is approached or reached.
So REVIEW is damnably important.
Situations have to be handled very fast.
And reviews have to be as quick as possible after effect can occur.
WHOLE VIEW
So here you have the whole view.
The keynotes are OBSERVE, EVALUATE, PROGRAM, SUPERVISE and REVIEW.
The heart of Observe is accuracy.
The heart of Evaluate is a cool, cold knowledge of the Data Series.
The heart of Program is knowing the scene.
The heart of Supervise is getting it FULLY done.
The heart of Review is HUMILITY.
SUMMARY
If you cannot roll all this off rapidly then misunderstood words in this
series are in the way. Or one is battling with some outpoint in his own
life.
The Data Series is for USE.
It works because it has unlocked logic.
In management one is very fortunate since he can program and handle.
In intelligence one is less fortunate as his handling can only be
suggested and many an intelligence officer has watched a useless Battle of
the Bulge after he told them all about it and "they" had other ideas. But
the Data Series works in intelligence as well.
Data analysis was not developed in a professorial out of a lost-to-the-
world tower. It was evolved by attempting to explain logic, then was
developed on one of the hottest cross-fire but successful evaluation posts
on the planet against a background of blood, sweat and tears war
intelligence experience.
So it is itself REAL.
The key to it is handling DATA.
So here it is.
I do sincerely hope it serves you in helping to attain your ideal scene.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:mes.rd.nf Copyright 0 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
75
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 29 FEBRUARY 1972R
Issue 11
Remimeo REVISED 4 JULY 1977
(Revisions in this type style)
Data Series 24R
HANDLING
POLICY, PLANS, PROGRAMS
PROJECTS AND ORDERS DEFINED
The words "policy," 66plans," "programs," "projects" and "orders" are
often used interchangeably one for the other, incorrectly.
To handle any confusions on the words and substance of "policy,"
"plans," 44programs," "projects" and "orders" the following DESCRIPTIVE
DEFINITIONS (see Scn Logic No. 5) are laid down for our use.
POLICY.- By this is meant long-range truths or facts which are not
subject to change expressed as operational rules or guides.
PLANS: Short-range broad intentions as to the contemplated actions
envisaged for the handling of a broad area to remedy it or expand it or to
obstruct or impede an opposition to expansion. A plan is usually based on
observation of potentials (or resources) and expresses a bright idea of how
to use them. It always proceeds from a REAL WHY if it is to be successful.
PROGRAM: A series of steps in sequence to carry out a plan. One usually
sees a program following the discovery of a Why. But in actual fact a plan
had to exist in the person's mind, whether written or not, before a program
could be written. A program, thus, carries out the plan conceived to handle
a found WHY. A plan and its program require authorization (or okay) from
the central or coordinating authority of the general activities of a group
before they can be invested in, activated or executed.
PROJECTS: The sequence of steps written to carry out ONE step of a
program. Project orders often have to be written to execute a program step.
These should be written but usually do not require any approval and often
are not generally issued but go to the person or persons who will
accomplish that step of a program. Under the category of PROJECT would come
orders, work projects, etc. These are a series of GUIDING STEPS which if
followed will result in a full and successful accomplishment of the program
target.
ORDERS: The verbal or written direction from a lower or designated
authority to carry out a program step or apply the general policy.
In short:
POLICY = the rules of the game, the facts of life, the discovered truths
and the invariable procedures.
PLANS = the general bright idea one has to remedy the WHY found and get
things up to the ideal scene or improve even that. (Approval.)
PROGRAM = the sequence of major actions needed to do the plan.
(Approval.)
PROJECT = the sequence of steps necessary to carry out one step in a
program. (No approval.)
ORDERS = some program steps are so simple that they are themselves an
order or an order can simply be a roughly written project.
76
Thus, by these definitions a data analysis would look like this:
POLICK (What brings the evaluation into existence in the first place.)
SITUATION: (Departure from or improvement of the ideal scene expressed
in policy.)
DATA: (Observations leading to INVESTIGATION.)
STATISTICS: (The independent continuing survey of production or lack of
it.)
WHY- (The real reason found by the investigation.)
IDEAL SCENE: (The state of affairs envisioned by policy or the
improvement of even that.)
HANDLING:
A PLAN whether written in full or not based on the WHY to use the
resources available to move the existing scene toward the ideal scene.
A PROGRAM: A sequence of broad steps to get the plan executed.
PROJECTS: Any sequence of steps ordered or written to get a program step
completed.
ORDERS: The program step itself or the verbal or written project to get
the program step fully done.
Thus a handling could look like this:
HANDLING:
Plan: To use Bob Bartlett to replace the incompetent exec found in the
WHY.
1. Find a replacement for Bartlett. PERSONNEL.
2. Program Bob Bartlett to get his incomplete cycles caught up. DIR OF
PERSONNEL ENHANCEMENT.
3. Train Bob Bartlett. DIR OF TRAINING.
4. Write Garrison Mission Orders for Bartlett. ACTION MISSION WRITER.
5. Write recall orders for G. Zonk (the incompetent found in the WHY).
PERSONNEL.
6. Send Bartlett to relieve Zonk. ACTION.
7. On Zonk's return assign to bilge cleaner. PERSONNEL.
This of course is a very simple plan and simple program.
The orders are seen as "PERSONNEL," "DIR OF PERSONNEL ENHANCEMENT,"
"ACTION MISSION WRITER," etc., at the paragraph ends. The program step
itself is an ORDER to the person or unit named at program step end. But IT
ALSO AUTHORIZES THAT PERSON OR UNIT TO DO THE STEP OR ISSUE ORDERS TO DO
THE STEP OR EVEN WRITE A PROJECT AND GET IT DONE.
77
Emorm",
That final end word on the program step is an AUTHORITY as well as being
an order to the person or unit named.
ROUND-UP
A copy of a full program marked MASTER is placed in a folder. The folder
is marked on the edge with the program name and number. The program itself
is stapled along its left edge to the inside left cover of the folder.
A "Flag Rep" is responsible for "LRH programs." A Deputy Executive
Director or Deputy Commanding Officer is responsible for an ED's or C/O's
programs.
The responsibility lies in seeing that each step is FULLY effectively
DONE.
All related papers, copies of projects' orders, etc., are collected in
that folder and as each done is reported and investigated as DONE it is
marked off on the MASTER program sheet.
When all those projects or orders bred by the program steps are DONE
then the PROGRAM is considered DONE.
One does not "report progress" but only DONES and when something is NOT
done yet it is chased up by the 'Flag Rep" or Deputy ED or C/0 and
"debugged."
DEBUGGING
The word "bugged" is slang for snarled up or halted.
DEBUG is to get the snarls or stops out of it.
This itself requires an evaluation. The evaluation may be done at a
glance or it may take a full formal evaluation by form.
The ideal scene here is the program step DONE or even improved.
So the WHY here would be the REAL reason it was not being done or
couldn't be done and that may require hours to locate and sometimes days to
remedy.
When "debugging" one usually finds the persons assigned the target
already have a "WHY" and it is usually a false Why for if it was the right
one the program step would get done.
Thus debugging usually begins with finding "their Whys"-which is to say
reasons, excuses, apologies, etc. Getting these into view is a main part of
the program step evaluation.
A project, often written, comes out of this DEBUG EVALUATION.
In extreme cases it will be found that the whole program is based on a
wrong WHY and rapidly needs redoing by the original authority. Example: The
WHY found was that the JINX OFFICE WAS NOT MAKING MONEY. In doing one step
of the program: "3. Survey past invoices to find where money is coming from
and why they don't get it now. MISSION," the mission sent finds Jinx Office
was making money by the ton but it was being wasted by their having bought
a huge building whose rent is three times normal rental "in the hopes new
subtenants would pay the rent but nobody wants the place." Rapid debug is
needed because the target can't really be done. They ARE making money and
they do get it now.
In such a case doing the program unearthed a new REAL WHY and scrubbed
that program.
A super-frantic hysterical communication would be sent to the authority
of the
78
program, "New WHY found by Pgm 891 target 3 observation. Jinx Office paying
$80,000 a quarter for skyscraper. Obvious real Why ED has delusions of
grandeur, is a bad business head. Suggest Pgm 891 redone on new Why and
suggest plan of mission here for instant offload of this skyscraper and
office into proper quarters and replacement of ED." At which the 'Flag Rep"
or Deputy ED or Deputy C/O will approach the authority for the pgm to get
immediate cancellation of 891 and all program targets and a new Program
891R based on the REAL REAL WHY.
Debug, however, is not always so dramatic. "We don't have anyone to put
on it" is the usual excuse as they sit lazily chatting amongst their piled
up dev-t.
So one evaluates the area against the program target and finds a WHY
that, executed as a project will get that target done.
The PERFECT DEBUG EVALUATION (a) gets the target done (b) improves the
area (c) leaves no dregs of human emotion and reaction behind it.
Just plain screaming often works. But if one has to, there is a real WHY
there someplace that should be found, a project handed out and done.
HANDLING SUMMARY
You can find out all the SITUATIONS and WHYS in the world but if there
isn't a PLAN and PROGRAM and if these are not DONE fully, then nothing
beneficial will happen. Indeed the not-dones, half-dones and backlogs will
mount up (per HCO P/L 26 Jan 72, Admin Know-How 29, Executive Series 5) and
set the whole thing a step backwards.
Bad programs and clumsy projects develop useless traffic (dev-t) and tie
people up all over the place, pull them off normal needful actions and send
the existing scene even further from the ideal scene. They make people very
busy but nothing beneficial is gained and as the useless actions distract
from normal duties, the whole place is at risk.
Staffs subjected to programs that are not based on sound observation
evaluation, a REAL WHY and the points in Data Series 23, become apathetic
as they see no result.
So programs that are bad and programs that are right but don't get fully
done are alike deadly. THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR CORRECTLY DONE DATA
ANALYSIS.
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR NOT GETTING CORRECT PROGRAMS DONE.
In this way and only in this way can one raise the existing scene toward
an ideal scene.
Data analysis is a powerful tool. YOU CAN USE IT.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Revision assisted by
Gelda Mithoff
LRH Comm Policy
Revision Project I/C
LRH:GM:ne.If/nt.nf Copyright 0 1972, 1977 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
79
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 19 MARCH 1972
Issue 11
Remimeo
Data Series 25
LEARNING TO USE DATA ANALYSIS
After one has studied data analysis he is expected to be able to use its
principles easily and swiftly,
The barriers to being able to use data analysis are, in the order of
frequency:
I . Misunderstood words. One has not gotten the definitions of the words
used. This does not mean "new words." It is usually old common words. It
is not just long words, it is more usually little ones. To handle this
one takes each policy letter (or chapter) in turn and looks it over
carefully to see what words he cannot rapidly define. To help in this
one uses an E-Meter and "Method 4" Word Clearing which is the method of
using a meter to see if-"Are there any words in this policy
misunderstood?" Any upset or antagonism or boredom felt comes only from
a misunderstood word or misunderstood words.
2. The person has himself an outpoint in his routine thinking. This is
found and handled by what is called an "HC (Hubbard Consultant) List."
This list assessed on a meter detects and handles this.
3. Lack of knowledge of an existing or an ideal scene. This is handled
by observing the existing scene directly or indirectly by reports and
for the ideal, study of the basic policy of the scene which gives one
its ideal, its expected products and form of organization.
4. Not having studied the Data Series. Handled by studying it properly.
5. Not having studied data analysis from the viewpoint of needing to
apply it.
6. Thinking one already knows all about analyzing and data. Handled by
looking over some past failures and realizing they could have been
prevented by a proper collection of data and analyzing it.
7. Tossing off "reasons" personally on one's own personal area which are
usually just excuses or justifications and not Whys. "I was too tired,"
"I should have been tougher," "They were just bums anyway," which loads
up one's own life with wrong Whys. Handled by being more alert to and
more honest about the causes and motives of one's life and the scene,
and doing a better analysis.
8. Confusing errors with outpoints. Handled by practice.
9. Confusing outpoints with Whys. Handled by learning to observe and
better study of data analysis.
10. Too narrow a situation. Handled by getting more data and observing
the scene more broadly.
11. Missing "omitted data" or particles or people as a frequent outpoint.
Handled by knowing the ideal scene better. What should be there and
isn't.
THE BEGINNER
When one begins to apply data analysis he is often still trying to
grasp the data
80
about data analysis rather than the outpoints in the data. Just become more
familiar with the Data Series.
Further one may not realize the ease with which one can acquire the
knowledge of an ideal scene. An outpoint is simply an illogical departure
from the ideal scene. By comparing the existing scene with the ideal scene
one easily sees the outpoints.
To know the ideal scene one has only to work out the correct products
for it. If these aren't getting out, then there is a departure. One can
then find the outpoints of the various types and then locate a WHY and in
that way open the door to handling. And by handling one is simply trying to
get the scene to get out its products.
Unless one proceeds in this fashion (from product back to
establishment), one can't analyze much of anything. One merely comes up
with errors.
The definition and nature of products is covered in several P/Ls and
especially in HCO P/L 13 Mar 72 Establishment Officer Series No. 5.
An existing scene is as good as it gets out its products, not as good as
it is painted or carpeted or given public relations boosts.
So for ANY scene, manufacturing or fighting a war or being a hostess at
a party, there are PRODUCTS.
People who lead pointless lives are very unhappy people. Even the idler
or dilettante is happy only when he has a product!
There is always a product for any scene.
The analyst when he begins may get the wrong product. He may get a
doingness instead of something one can have. And he may look upon a half
completion or half-done thing as a completed product.
All this makes his data analysis faulty. As he can't figure out an ideal
scene, he then has nothing to compare the existing scene to. It is simply a
matter of the cost and time involved in not or half getting a product
compared to the ideal scene of a really valuable product with exchange
value and what it takes to get it. These two things can be worlds apart.
The trail that leads to a WHY that will close the gap is plainly marked
with one kind or another of outpoints. Where the most and biggest are,
there is the WHY. Found, the real WHY and actual handling will move the
existing toward ideal.
Hideously enough, what I say about products is true. Even a government
could have a product. Like "a prosperous happy country." An intelligence
agency often muffs its product such as, "a properly briefed head of state."
But to do it the head of state would have to have a product concerning
other nations like, "friendly, cooperative allies which are a help and no
threat," or some other product. Otherwise the agency would wind up going
straight out of the intelligence business and being required to conduct its
business by assassination of foreign notables or other actions to do
handlings based on wrong Whys.
As there would be no product, there could not really be an ideal scene.
If there is no ideal scene then there is no way to compare the existing
scene. Thus, outpoints would expose situations but no WHY would really be
possible as there's no ideal scene to approach. One has often heard some
agency or activity say, "Where the hell are we going anyway?" Translated
this would be, "We haven't had any ideal scene set up for us." And
translated further, "The policy-makers have no product in view." So they
aren't going any place really and lack of an objective would cause them to
go down and lack of a product would cause them to be miserable.
That's the way life has been running.
Parents and others often ask children, "What will you do when you grow
up?" Or "What are you going to be?" This is not baffling for a 5-year-old,
perhaps, but it is a confuser for a child of 12. There are BE, DO and HAVE
as three major conditions of
81
existence. One must BE in order to DO and DO in order to HAVE. A product is
the Have. It is not the DO. Most people give "Do" as "product." A product
is a completed thing that has exchange value within or outside the
activity.
If one asked a 12-year-old, "What product are you going to make when you
grow up?" he'd likely give you the exchange reward as the answer, like
"money." He has omitted a step. He has to have a product to exchange for
money.
To "make money" directly he'd have to be the Secretary of the Treasury,
superintendent of the mint or a counterfeiter!
Only if you cleared up product and exchange with him could he begin to
answer the question about what's what with growing up.
Let's say this is done and he says he is set on making photographs of
buildings. The DO now falls into line-he'd have to photograph things well.
The BE is obviousarchitectural photographer. The exchange of architectural
photographs for salary or fee is feasible if he is good.
So now we find he is a poor boy and no chance of schooling or even a box
camera. That's the existing scene.
The ideal scene is a successful architectural photographer making
pictures of buildings.
You see the gap between the existing scene and the ideal scene.
Now you can follow back the outpoints and get a WHY.
It isn't just that he's poor. That's no WHY as it opens no doors to get
from existing scene to ideal scene.
We investigate and find his "father" is very religious but an alcoholic
and that the boy is illegitimate and his "father" hates his guts.
So we find a WHY that his "father," much less helping him, is not about
to let him amount to anything whatever ever.
This opens a door.
Handling often requires a bright idea. And we find the local parson has
often shown interest in the boy so an obvious handling is to get the parson
to persuade the "father" to let the boy apprentice in the local photo store
and tell the boy what he has to do to make good there.
Situations cannot be handled well unless a real WHY is found.
And a real WHY cannot be found unless the product is named and an ideal
scene then stated. This compared to the existing scene gives us, really the
first outpoint.
In going the other direction, to find a WHY of sudden improvement, one
has to locate poor existing scenes that suddenly leap up toward ideal
scenes. This is done by locating a high product period (by stats or other
signs of production) and comparing IT as an ideal scene to the existing
scenes before it (and just after if there was a slump) and looking into
that for a WHY. But one is looking for pluspoints. And these lead to a real
WHY for the prosperity or improvement.
A "Who" will often be found. Like "James Johnny was shop foreman then."
Well, he's dead. So it's not a Why as it leads nowhere. What did James
Johnny DO that was different? "He got out products" leads nowhere. We keep
looking and we find he had a scheduling board and really kept it up-to-date
and used it as a single difference. Aha "The WHY is a kept up scheduling
board!" The handling is to put a clerk on doingjust that and hatting the
current foreman to use it or catch it. Result, up go the stats and morale.
People can look at it and see what they're producing today and where
they're at!
82
So not all WHYs are found by outpoints. The good situations are traced
by pluspoints.
If the high peak is current, one has to find a Why, in the same way, to
maintain it.
STANDARD ACTION
A beginner can juggle around and go badly adrift if he doesn't follow
the pattern:
1. Work out exactly what the (person, unit, activity) should be
producing.
2. Work out the ideal scene.
3. Investigate the existing scene.
4. Follow outpoints back from ideal to existing,
5. Locate the real WHY that will move the existing toward ideal.
6. Look over existing resources.
7. Get a bright idea of how to handle,
8 Handle or recommend handling so that it stays handled.
This is a very sure-fire approach.
If one just notes errors in a scene, with no product or ideal with which
to compare the existing scene, he will not be doing data analysis and
situations will deteriorate badly because he is finding wrong Whys.
THINKING
One has to be able to think with outpoints. A crude way of saying this
is "learn to think like an idiot." One could also add "without abandoning
any ability to think like a genius."
If one can't tolerate outpoints at all or confront them one can't see
them.
A madman can't tolerate pluspoints and he doesn't see them either.
But there can be a lot of pluspoints around and no production. Thus one
can be told how great it all is while the place edges over to the point of
collapse.
An evaluator who listens to people on the scene and takes their WHYs
runs a grave risk. If these were the Whys then things would be better.
A far safer way is to talk only insofar as finding what the product is
concerned and investigating.
One should observe the existing scene through data or through observers
or through direct observation.
An evaluator often has to guess what the WHY might be. It is doing that
which brings up the phrase "Learn to think like an idiot." The WHY will be
found at the end of a trail of outpoints. Each one is an aberration when
compared to the ideal scene. The biggest idiocy which then explains all the
rest and which opens the door to improvement toward the ideal scene is the
WHY.
One also has to learn to think like a genius with pluspoints.
Get the big peak period of production (now or in the past). Compare it
to the existing scene just before.
Now find the pluspoints that were entered in. Trace these and you arrive
at the WHY as the biggest pluspoint that opened the door to improvement.
83
But once more one considers resources available and has to get a bright
idea.
So it is the same series of steps as above but with pluspoints.
VETERAN
A veteran evaluator can toss off evaluations in an hour or two, mainly
based on how long it takes him to dig up data.
A big tough situation may require days and days.
Sometimes luck plays a role in it. The data that was the key to it was
being sat on by someone not skilled in the subject and who had no idea of
relative importances. Sometimes the datum pops up like toast from an
electric toaster. Sometimes one has it all wrapped up and then suddenly a
new outpoint or pluspoint appears that changes the whole view of the
evaluator.
Example: A firm's blacklist has just been published in a newspaper or as
a scandal. Evaluator: "They do what?" in a voice of incredulity. "They ship
their security files to Memphis in open crates? Because they are saving on
postage?" Wrath could dangerously shoot a wrong somebody. The idiocy is not
believable. But a new datum leads to personnel who hired a reporter in
disguise because it no longer requires or looks up references.
Example: Situation where stats soared. "They used schoolchildren to pass
out literature?" That's just a point but a strange one. Turns out they also
hired a cashier and had NEVER HAD ONE ON POST BEFORE! Why? Nobody to take
money.
Man gets dedicated to his own pet theories very easily. A true scientist
doesn't fixate on one idea. He keeps looking until he finds it, not until
his pet theory is proven. That's the test of an evaluator.
STATISTICS
One always runs by statistics where these are valid.
Statistics must reflect actual desired PRODUCT. If they do not they are
not valid. If they do they give an idea of ideal scene.
From a statistic reflecting the desired products one can work out the
departure from the ideal scene.
A backlog of product production must reflect in a stat. As a backlog is
negative production.
From such tools an evaluator can work.
The use of data analysis is relatively easy compared to learning a
musical instrument.
You have the hang of how it is done.
So why not just be a veteran right now and DO IT.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.mes.rd.nf Copyright @ 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
84
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 12 JUNE 1972
Remimeo
Data Series 26
Establishment Officer Series 18
LENGTH OF TIME TO EVALUATE
It will be found that long times required to do an evaluation can be
traced each time to AN INDIVIDUAL WHY FOR EACH EVALUATOR.
These, however, can be summarized into the following classes of Whys:
This list is assessed by a Scientology auditor on a meter. The handling
directions given in each case are designations for auditing actions as done
by a Scientology auditor and are given in the symbols he would use.
1. Misunderstood words.
(Handled with Word Clearing [Method I and Method 4 of the Word
Clearing Series].)
2. Inability to study and an inability to learn the materials.
(Handled by a Study Correction List HCOB 4 Feb 72.)
3. Outpoints in own thinking.
(Handled by what is called an HC [Hubbard Consultant] List HCOB 28
August 70.)
4. Personal out-ethics.
(Use P/L 3 May 72 by an auditor. Has two listing and nulling type
lists.)
5. Doing something else.
(2-way communication on P/L 3 May 72 or reorganization.)
6. Impatient or bored with reading.
(Achieve Super-Literacy. LRH Executive Directive 178 International.)
7. Doesn't know how to read statistics so doesn't know where to
begin.
(Learn to read stats from Management by Stat P/Ls.)
8. Doesn't know the scene.
(Achieve familiarity by direct observation.)
9. Reads on and on as doesn't know how to handle and is stalling.
(Get drilled on actual handling and become Super- Literate.)
85
10. Afraid to take responsibility for the consequences if wrong.
(HCOB 10 May 72 Robotism. Apply it.)
11. Falsely reporting.
(Pull all withholds and harmful acts on the subject.)
12. Assumes the Why before starting.
(Level IV service facsimile triple auditing.)
13. Feels stupid about it.
(Get IQ raised by general processing.)
14. Has other intentions.
(Audit on L9S or Expanded Dianetics.)
15. Has other reasons not covered in above.
(Listing and nulling to blowdown F/N item on the list.)
16. Has withholds about it.
(Get them off.)
17. Has had wrong reasons found.
(C/S Series 78.)
18. Not interested in success.
(P/L 3 May 72 and follow as in 14 above.)
19. Some other reason.
(Find it by 2-way comm.)
20. No trouble in the first place.
(Indicate it to person.)
When this list is assessed one can easily spot why the person is having
trouble with the Data Series or applying it. When these reasons are
handled, one can then get the series restudied and word cleared and
restudied and it will be found that evaluations are much easier to do and
much more rapidly done.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:ne.rd.nf Copyright V 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
86
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 25 MAY 1973
Remimeo
Data Series 27
SUPPLEMENTARY EVALUATIONS
(Starrate all evaluators)
If one knows how to evaluate an existing scene correctly (which means by
the purest and most exacting application of the Data Series) and still does
not achieve an improvement toward the ideal scene, several things may be
the reason.
First amongst these is of course poor evaluation. Second would be a
considerable disagreement in the evaluated scene with the WHY, especially
if it is interpreted as condemnatory. Third would be a failure to obtain
actual compliance with the targets in the evaluation. Fourth would be
interference points or areas which, although affecting the scene being
evaluated, are not looked at in relationship to it.
In any scene being evaluated, there are two areas which are not likely
to get much attention from the evaluator as they may not be remarked on in
any of the reports or data being used in his evaluation. These two types of
area are (1) LOCAL ENVIRONMENT and (2) RELAY POINTS AND LINES BETWEEN
POLICY AND ORDER SOURCE AND THE SCENE ITSELF.
These two areas may be looked at as (1) the plane upon which the scene
exists and (2) the upper stages of authority under which the scene reacts.
THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT
The surrounding area to the scene being evaluated in the matter or a
person would be the general third dynamic or other dynamic in which he or
she lives his day-to-day life and which influences the person and therefore
influences his hat or post. The search for the WHY which exactly causes Joe
or Joanna to fail to hold post or wear a hat and which when handled will
greatly better Joe or Joanna may well be their reactions to environments at
their level and which may be or may not be there with them. Family or
distant friends, not visible to an evaluator, or the work environment or on-
the-job friends of Joe or Joanna may greatly influence Joe or Joanna.
This might prove too inviting for the evaluator to blame environment for
the state of the existing scene and a caution'would have to be introduced:
that any WHY must lead to a bettered scene and must not just explain it.
EVAL BY RELAY PTs.
Thus, in such a problem it should be understood that one has TWO
existing scenes, one, the person and two, his environment; that they
interrelate does not make them just one scene. Thus two evaluations about
Joe or Joanna are possible, each with its program. To go about it otherwise
is likely to prove as unsuccessful as the original evaluation of the
person. Life and orders are reaching Joe or Joanna through relay points
which are not ordinarily taken into consideration. Thus those areas should
be separately evaluated. Usually, in the case of a person, something would
have to be done to those areas, on the same plane as the person, by the
person himself. So the program might include what the person himself could
do about them.
The local environment of a material object, such as a machine or an
office or a vehicle, may also be evaluated as well as the machine or the
office or vehicle itself.
In short, there are relay points of difficulties that produce
situations, on the same plane as the person or thing being evaluated. And
these make ADDITIONAL evaluations possible and often profitable to the
evaluator in terms of bettered ideal scenes. Yet at first glance, or using
only the usual reports, it may seem that there is only one situation such
as the person himself.
87
Completely in the interests of justice, it is unfair to put down a
target in some greater area situation like "Remove Joe." It may well be
that stats did go down when Joe was appointed to a post. Well, that may be
perfectly true. But by only then evaluating Joe and not the greater zone of
Joe's personal scenes, one may very well come up with a very wrong and
abrupt and unjust target. WHO in other words, when found, may not solve the
scene at all even when one only targets it as "specially train" or "audit"
without removal. There may be another scene that is having an effect on Joe
which, if not evaluated properly with a proper program of its own, will
make nonsense out of any program about Joe himself related only to his post
or position. Another scene may be relaying fatality to Joe which if
unhandled will unsuit him to any other post of any other kind.
Thus Joe and Joanna would have, each of them, TWO or more full
evaluations possible. What the person is failing at or not doing on the job
may have a plain enough WHY that can be corrected by programming and moved
to an ideal scene or at least toward it. What is hitting the person at an
environmental or familial or social level might be an entirely different
situation, requiring its own evaluation, with a proper WHY and program for
Joe or Joanna to carry out themselves or even with some help from others.
In a broader case, we have, let us say, an organization or division that
is in a situation. One, of course, can evaluate it as itself, finding a
proper WHY and a nice bright idea and a program'. And one can also do a
second evaluation of the local environment. This might be the society or an
adjacent division or even another organization. And this will require the
location of a situation and finding its WHY and working out a program to
handle that can be done by the org or the division itself or with help from
outside.
The local environment outside the scene being evaluated is then a proper
subject for another evaluation.
It is a serious error to only evaluate the local environment as all too
often the person or org or division will insist that that is the ONLY
situation and also that it is totally beyond any remedy by their own
actions. Thus, if the evaluator is going to evaluate the local environment
of a subject that is in a situation, he does it AFTER he has evaluated the
subject on its own ground totally.
EVALUATION OF ECHELONS
On any command or communication channel there are always a certain
number of points extending from source through relay points down to the
final receipt or action point. These may be very numerous. Some may be
beyond the authority of any evaluator. But each is capable of having ITS
OWN SITUATION that will cause an evaluation of the receipt or action point
to fail.
These can be called "echelons" or step-like formations. The receipt or
action point that is to comply finally with the program may be the subject
of hidden sources of effect in the relay points of any program or order.
Thus, as in the case of a dangerous decline of some activity somewhere,
an evaluator has several evaluations possible and probably necessary.
It would be, by experience, a severe error to try to evaluate all these
different scenes (such as many echelons each in a different area) in one
evaluation and find a WHY for the lot as one is attempting to find a single
WHY for several different scenes in different places which violates the
strict purity of evaluation procedure.
One may find the exact and correct WHY for the point of action and do a
splendid program only to find that somehow it didn't come off or didn't
last. Yet it was the right WHY for that scene. Hidden from view is the
influence on that scene from one or more upper echelons which have,
themselves, an individual situation and need their own WHY and their own
program. Only then can the influence on the action point be beneficial in
its entirety.
There is a system by which this is done.
1. One recognizes that there is a situation in an area which has
not responded well to previous evaluation or has not maintained any
benefit received very long.
88
2. One realizes that there are several,echelons above the point
being evaluated.
3. One draws these points without omission. This makes a sort of
graph or command chart. It includes every command or comm relay
point above the level of the point being evaluated.
4. The points, if any, BELOW the point under consideration as in I
above are then added to the chart below it.
5. One now undertakes a brief study of EACH of these points above
and below to see if any have a situation of its own that could
influence the success or failure of the original point evaluated as
in I above.
6. One does a full separate evaluation of each of these echelon
points where any situation seems to exist. Each of the evaluations
done must have its own local situation, WHY and program. Care is
taken not to evaluate "n o- situations." Care is also taken to keep
this SERIES of evaluations consistent with the main idea of
remedying I above.
7. The evaluations are released as a series and executed as
feasible.
In doing such a series, brand new data may leap out as to the
interrelationship of all these relay points and this may bring about a
recommendation for a change of organization requiring new policy. But this
would be another evaluation entirely as it is in effect an evaluation of
basic organizational policy and may even require that tech be issued or
withdrawn.
Take a case where the area which has not bettered or sustained a
betterment has in actual fact two echelons below it and six above. The
area, let us say, is a continental management office of an international
hotel chain. Below it are its state offices and below that the hotels on
that continent. Above it is the international comm relay center, the
international headquarters executive at international headquarters for that
continent, above that the international management organization, above that
the chief executive of the international management organization, above
that the advisors to the board and above that the board itself.
By drawing these out as a series of echelons one sees that there is
potentially a series of eight evaluations in addition to the main
evaluation of that continental office which is where the situation
originally was. By scanning over all these eight other influencing areas,
one may find one or more of them which have situations of real influence on
the original evaluation subject.
One then evaluates separately and handles separately WHILE STILL GOING
ON HANDLING THE ORIGINAL SUBJECT.
One can then also do the local environment evaluation of the original
subject if there seems to be a situation there.
No evaluation is done where there is no situation. But one should assert
in a covering note to the series that there are no known situations in the
remaining points.
Doing a series of evaluations and local environment evaluations can be
extremely fruitful only so long as one realizes that they comprise separate
situations which only by their influence are preventing an ideal scene from
being achieved in the original area where betterment cannot be attained or
maintained.
Supplementary evaluations, when necessary and when done, can rescue a
long series of apparently fruitless evaluations of a subject and move the
evaluator himself toward a more ideal and happier scene of success.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sr.rd.nf Copyright 0 1973 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
89
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 19 SEPTEMBER 1973
Issue IR
Remimeo REVISED 22 JUNE 1975
Data Series 28R
(Data Series 28 is cancelled because it could be misinterpreted and I did
not authorize its release. The data contained in it would have been written
by me as a P/L had I considered them vital to evaluation.)
CHECKING EVALS
In checking over the evaluations of others, there is no substitute for
following the hard and fast rule of insisting upon
a. Purity of evaluation
b. Consistency
C. Workability
d. Authenticity of the data.
There are no small rules. To quote one of these, "The situation is the
direct opposite of the ideal scene." This is not necessarily true and is
not a precise definition. A situation is the most major departure from the
ideal scene. That's purity by definition.
A Why is not necessarily opposite to an ideal scene. But it is of the
same order of thing.
Example: Stat of Income Divided by Staff sunk to 150.
Ideal scene: Staff producing under competent management.
Sit: Execs not coming to work.
Why: The ED has forbidden any exec to be paid.
If you look this over it is consistent. But it is not reversals or
opposites.
The stat found the area, the ideal scene was easy. Search of data found
the sit as the biggest departure. Further search found the Why. Further
search and knowledge of the existing scene would get a bright idea (which
would not be sacking the ED who is probably the only one coming to work,
but more likely getting the ED and execs into a hello-okay session and
resolve their hates and ordering execs be paid at once).
THE COMMON BUG
(Orders of Day Item 24 Feb 75)
"I found that getting the sit was a common bug. Evidently people don't
do a real stat analysis and get an ideal scene, look for its furthest
departure and get the sit and then look for data and find the Why.
"There are many ways to go about it but the above is easy, simple and
foolproof.
"It would look like this on a worksheet:
90
"GDS analysis to find the area and a conditional guess.
"Ideal scene for that area.
"Biggest depart from it for the SITUATION.
"Stats Data Outpoint counts Why Ethics Why WHO Idealscene Handling
Bright idea.
"If you're very good your GDS analysis will get confirmed by data.
"The real Why opens the door to handling.
"And you can handle.
"This doesn't change eval form. It's just a working model.
"All good evals are very consistent-all on same railroad track. Not
pies, sea lions, space ships. But pies, apples, flour, sugar, stoves.
"I think evaluators get dispersed and Q and A with data, lacking any
guideline. And so take a near forever.
"Last one I did, the GDS analysis gave the whole scene and then it got
confirmed, all on the same outline as above. That org is still booming!
"It took 61/2 hours, including doing the majority of the targets!
"It doesn't take days or weeks, much less months!
"It takes hours."
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.nf Copyright ID 1973, 1975 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
91
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 19 SEPTEMBER 1973-1
Rernimeo ADDITION OF 20 MARCH 1977
Data Series 28R-1
CHECKING EVALUATIONS
ADDITION
(In January 1976 LRH began work on sorting out the fact that evaluators
were not evaluating situations. What follows is taken from LRH notes.)
MULTIPLE SITUATIONS
"Somebody has evaluators on a 'whole org' kick where the evaluation must
handle the whole org. Evidence of this is 'the Why' lately was defined as
something that handled all outpoints. The initial step of the stat analysis
to find the area and then find its situation and its Why is not being done.
Hence individual org situations do not get spotted or evaluated and
evaluations take forever."
(One of the org evaluations submitted to LRH was returned with the
following note.) "This evaluation has almost no outpoints in it. Almost
every paragraph is a situation requiring evaluation.
"A situation is something that affects stats or survival of the org.
"An outpoint is something that contributes to a situation and should not
be in the situation area.
"A Why is the real basic reason for the situation which, being found,
opens the door to handling.
"Evaluators who are trying to embrace the whole org of world in one
evaluation are missing all the real situations or landing only in Division
Seven."
(The following is a despatch written by LRH in May 1976 regarding an
earlier evaluation done on an org which LRH was evaluating at the time.)
"That evaluation, that was to pull in the CO, had one of these
'philosophical Whys,' 'The CO and HCO have prevented execs from being made
by omitting actions that would accomplish this (i.e. choosing suitable
ones, hatting, training and apprenticing them) which has led to blows and
19th century solution of transfers and removals and eventually no execs at
all.' That's all fine but you can ask of it, 'How come they're doing thatT
so it couldn't be a bottom level Why. Anytime you can ask a 'How comeT you
haven't got a Why, you have a situation.
"Just an off-the-cuff Why better than that would be 'Day and Foundation
staff are the same, allowing no time to hat and train' or another, 'There
is no HCO staff' or another 'Only a handful make the GI and the rest of the
org is considered superfluous'-yet none of these are the Why either as you
can also again ask 'How comeT And the org is delivering.
"So this is what I am working on now. The new type of evaluation would
use telex
92
lines and FRs to ask a lot of questions AFTER one had found the real
situation. It would go: Find the situation area from stats, find the
situation from data files, get some sort of a Why (that will now become the
situation) and burn the telex lines or send a mission from the FOLO to find
out how come that situation. You would then get the real Why and could do a
program. This would make evaluations pretty real!"
Compiled from LRH notes of January 1976 and May 1976
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Assisted by
Louise Kelly
Flag Mission 1710 I/C
LRH:LK:lf.nf Copyright 10 1973, 1976, 1977 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
93
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 19 SEPTEMBER 1973-2
Remimeo ADDITION OF 2 OCTOBER 1977
Data Series 28R-2
MULTIPLE SIT EVAL FORMAT
For multiple situation evaluations, the following is the correct format
to use in the final evaluation write-up:
SITUATION ONE
POLICY.
SITUATION.
S TA TS:
DATA:
OUTPOINT COUNT.
PLUSPOINT COUNT. (As applicable)
WHE.
ETHICS WHY. (As applicable)
WHO: (As applicable)
IDEAL SCENE:
HANDLING: (For a multiple sit eval, the plan is written here,
e.g."HANDLING: Find and train executives...." etc.)
SITUATION TWO
POLICK
(And so on, as per above)
The above format is repeated for as many situations as were evaluated.
Then:
PROGRAM
1. (First target)
2. (Second target)
And so on.
The program targets to specifically handle the Whys of each situation
should be divided up as follows:
94
SITUATION ONE TARGETS
4. (Or whatever number, in sequence, after any beginning general
targets) Make up a list....
5. Go through the org....
6. Go and see. .
(Etc.)
SITUATION TWO TARGETS
19. (Or whatever number, in sequence, following the Sit One targets) See
that....
20. Call on ....
21. Get the ....
(Etc.)
One does this for as many situations as were evaluated.
When writing and issuing a set of program orders or mission orders
separate to the eval itself, the usual program or mission order format is
used, except the operating targets get divided up as shown above.
Compiled from AO 536-10 and FMO 1672 as the proper format per direction
from LRH as given in ED 270 FB
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Assisted by
S. Hubbard
AVU Verifications Chief
LRH:SH:pat.nf Copyright 0 1973, 1977 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
95
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 30 SEPTEMBER 1973
Issue I
Remimeo
Data Series 29
OUTPOINTS, MORE
1 recently surveyed a number of possible new outpoints. Almost all of
them were simply the basic outpoints in a different guise and needed no
special category.
However, two new outpoints did emerge that are in addition to the basic
number.
The new outpoints are
ADDED TIME. In this outpoint we have the reverse of dropped time. In
added time we have, as the most common example, something taking longer
than it possibly could. To this degree it is a version of conflicting data
= something takes three weeks to do but it is reported as taking six
months. But added time must be called to attention as an outpoint in its
own right for there is a tendency to be reasonable about it and not see
that it IS an outpoint in itself.
In its most severe sense, added time becomes a very serious outpoint
when, for example, two or more events occur at the same moment involving,
let us say, the same person who could not have experienced both. Time had
to be ADDED to the physical universe for the data to be true. Like this: "I
left for Saigon at midnight on April 2 1 st, 1962, by ship from San
Francisco." "I took over my duties at San Francisco on April 30th, 1962."
Here we have to add time to the physical universe for both events to occur
as a ship would take two or three weeks to get from San Francisco to
"Saigon."
Another instance, a true occurrence and better example of added time
happened when 1 once sent a checklist of actions it would take a month to
complete to a junior executive and received compliance in full in the next
return mail. The checklist was in her hands only one day! She would have
had to add 29 days to the physical universe for the compliance report to be
true. This is also dropped time on her part.
ADDED INAPPLICABLE DATA. Just plain added data does not necessarily
constitute an outpoint. It may be someone being thorough. But when the data
is in no way applicable to the scene or situation and is added it is a
definite outpoint.
Example: Long, long reams of data on an eval write-up, none of which is
giving any clue to the outpoints on the scene. By actual survey it was
found that the person doing it did not know any Why (not having used
outpoints to find it) and was just stalling.
Often added data is put there to cover up neglect of duty or mask a real
situation. It certainly means the person is obscuring something.
Usually added data also contains other types of outpoints like wrong
target or added time.
In using this outpoint be very sure you also understand the word
inapplicable and see that it is only an outpoint if the. data itself does
not apply to the subject at hand.
There is more about another already named outpoint:
WRONG SOURCE. This is the opposite direction from wrong target.
96
An example would be a president of the United States in 1973 using the
opinions and congratulations of Soviet leaders to make his point with
American voters.
A more common version of this, not unknown in intelligence report
grading for probability, would be a farmer in Iowa reporting a Mexican
battleship on Mud Creek. The farmer would be a wrong source for accurate
naval reports.
A private taking an order from a sergeant that countermands an order he
had from a lieutenant would be an example of wrong source.
What is sometimes called a "Hey You" "organization" is one that takes
orders from anyone = a repeating outpoint of wrong source.
There are many examples of this outpoint. It must be included as a very
important outpoint on its own. It produces a chaos of illogical ideas and
actions when present.
PLUSPOINTS
CORRECT TIME or the expected time period is a pluspoint.
ADEQUATE DATA is a pluspoint.
APPLICABLE DATA is a pluspoint.
CORRECT SOURCE is a pluspoint.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.jh.nf Copyright c 1973 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
97
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 30 SEPTEMBER 1973
Issue 11
Remimeo
Data Series 30
SITUATION FINDING
There is an ironbound rule in handling things:
WHERE YOU FIND OUTPOINTS YOU WILL
THERE ALSO FIND A SITUATION.
If several outpoints come to view in any scene (or even one), if you
look further you will find a situation.
There is not any real art to finding situations if you can see
outpoints.
The sequence is simple. (1) You see some outpoints in a scene, (2) you
investigate and "pull a few strings" (meaning follow down a chain of
outpoints) and (3) you will find a situation, and (4) then you can
evaluate.
Statistics are leaders in pointing the way. They should be X, they are
not X. That is conflicting data. Behind that you will find a situation.
If anyone has any trouble finding situations then one of three things is
true (a) he cannot recognize outpoints when he sees them, (b) he does not
have any concept of the ideal scene or want it, or (c) he does not know how
to pull strings, which is to say ask for or look for data.
On the positive side, to find situations one has to (A) be able to
recognize outpoints, (B) has to have some idea of an ideal scene and want
it, and (C) has to be able to "pull strings."
Evaluation is very much simpler when you realize that the art lies in
finding situations. To then find a Why is of course only a matter of
counting outpoints and recognizing what (that can be handled) is retarding
the achievement of a more ideal scene.
REASONABLENESS
One often wonders why people are so "reasonable" about intolerable and
illogical situations.
The answer is very simple: they cannot recognize outpoints when they see
them and so try to make everything seem logical.
The ability to actually see an outpoint for what it is, in itself is an
ability to attain some peace of mind. For one can realize it is what it is,
an outpoint. It is not a matter for human emotion and reaction. It is a
pointer toward a situation.
The moment you can see this you will be able to handle life a lot
better.
The human reaction is to REACT! to an outpoint. And then get
"reasonable" and adopt some explanation for it, usually untrue.
You can safely say that "being reasonable" is a symptom of being unable
to recognize outpoints for what they are and use them to discover actual
situations.
NATIVE THINK
It may come as a surprise or no surprise at all that the ability to
evaluate as given in this Data Series is not necessarily native to a being.
98
In a native state a being detests illogic and rejects it. He seldom uses
it for any other purposes than humor or showing up a rival in debate as a
fool or using it in justice or a court of law to prove the other side wrong
or guilty.
A being is dedicated to being logical and he does, usually, a wonderful
job of it.
But when he encounters illogic he often feels angry or frustrated or
helpless.
He has not, so far as I know, ever used illogic as a systematic tool for
thinking.
Certain obsolete efforts to describe Man's thinking processes stressed
"associative thought" and various other mechanisms to prove Man a fully
logical "animal." The moment they tried to deal with illogic they assigned
it to aberration and sought drugs, tortures or executions that would "cure
it." None of them ever thought of using illogic as a tool of rational
thinking! Thus they did not advance anyone's intelligence and conceived
intelligence as unchangeable and fixed.
The only Greek school of philosophy that dealt with illogic was the
Sophist school. But even they had no real idea of the illogic. They were
employed by politicians to make their political acts seem reasonable!
Even humorists have no real idea of illogic. Reading their ideas of the
theory of humor shows them to be off the mark. They don't really know what
is "funny."
Laughter is rejection, actually.
And humor you will find usually deals with one or another outpoint put
in such a way that the reader or audience can reject it.
The groan of most humorists is that too often their hearers go
reasonable on them. PAT. "Who was that hobo I saw you with last night?"
MIKE: "That wasn't no oboe, that was my fife." LISTENER (puzzled): "But
maybe it was a very slender hobo."
The tendency of a being is to try to keep it reasonable, logical,
rational. And that is of course a very praiseworthy impulse or all life's
endeavors might unhinge.
The fear of being illogical is a secret fear of being crazy or insane.
(Not an idle fear when psychiatry was roaming around loose.) Or at the
least being thought a fool or dullard or at the very very least, unworldly
and uneducated.
To evaluate and be a fine evaluator is to be able to prevent a slump
toward a painful collapse. And to be able to steer the way from the non-
ideal present to the ideal future.
A person who feels queasy about his sanity really doesn't dare look at
outpoints or confront and use illogic. Yet it is the way to full sanity
itself.
The ability to evaluate puts one at cause over both the mad and ideal.
It places a being at a height it is unlikely he has ever before enjoyed in
the realm of commanding the situations of life.
Evaluation is a new way to think.
It is very worthwhile to acquire such an ability as it is doubtful if it
ever before has been achieved.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:ntjh.nf Copyright 0 1973 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
99
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 25 NOVEMBER 1973
Issue I
Remimeo CORRECTED AND REISSUED 17 MAY 1974
Data Series 31
FINAL TARGETS
The first, foremost and most usual reason evaluations fail is because
the programs to handle are not done.
The evaluator, with all the study for an ideal scene, the exhaustive
search for data and the collection and count of outpoints and pluspoints,
with the discovery thereafter of the right Why and the brightest of ideas
to handle may yet be totally defeated by the simple fact that no one ever
chases up the target execution and gets the program really and honestly
DONE.
He can even have someone who is responsible for getting his program
executed only to find they are themselves issuing additional or even
contrary orders. Or even issuing whole new programs which have no relation
to evaluation at all.
Circumstances have been found where a person with the duty of getting
targets done was so deficient in the ability to confront that he accepted
any excuse at all and was even pushed over into other subjects. The remedy
for this of course is HCOB 21 Nov 73, "The Cure of Q & A, Man's Deadliest
Disease."
It can be so bad that persons entrusted with target execution did not
even speak to or approach any person who had a target to do while not
reporting at all or reporting marvelous progress with the program!
So, sad to have to relate, it is not enough to be a fantastic and able
evaluator. If the program is never truly done, the evaluation is merely a
mental exercise.
The ability to supervise and obtain cooperation and execution is
mandatory for the skill of any evaluator.
HCO P/L I Sept 73, "Admin Know-How No. 30" and HCO P/L 15 Oct 73, Admin
Know-How Series 31, "Administrative Skill," give the evaluator some of the
additional data he needs to obtain execution of his programs.
One can say right here that the thought, "Oh well, I'm just a sort of
technician here and it's really not up to me to RUN things. I just evaluate
and it's up to 'them' to see that they carry it out," is very likely to
occur.
But if one's repute as an evaluator is to be established, it will come
about because
THE EXISTING SCENE MOVED UP MARKEDLY TOWARD OR BECAME THE IDEAL
SCENE.
If that does not occur, then seniors or workers don't blame the
supervisors or communicators. They blame the evaluator. "Oh him! He
evaluated the building situation and look, the whole situation went to
hell."
No justice at all. The data and Why and all the rest were quite right.
The on-paper evaluation was perfect. It would have "handled the hell" out
of it. But lamentably the program just was never done. Altered or falsely
reported or untouched, the targets just weren't done.
So the test of an evaluation is
DID IT MOVE THE EXISTING SCENE TOWARD OR ATTAIN THE IDEAL SCENE?
100
mnlr~
And that cannot occur without the program being fully and totally and
correctly done.
See also HCO P/L 26 Jan 72, "Not-dones, Half-dones and Backlogs" for
more data on this.
Thus it is VITAL that four final targets exist on every evaluation,
These are
(Fourth from last number of the evaluation program.) Verify from personal
inspection of the existing evidence or the scene itself that every target
has been fully done without omission, alteration, falsehood or exaggerated
reports. EVALUATOR.
(Third from last number of the evaluation program.) Look at current
statistics and the results of the above inspection and the SITUATION of
this evaluation as written above AND SEE IF THE SITUATION IS NO LONGER A
THREAT. EVALUATOR.
(Second from last number of the evaluation program.) Look again at the
IDEAL SCENE as written above. Then look at the above two targets and
further investigate and SEE IF THE IDEAL SCENE HAS NOW BEEN APPROACHED MORE
CLOSELY OR ATTAINED. EVALUATOR.
(Last numbered target of the evaluation program.) (A) If the above three
targets do not show a favorable approach toward or attainment of the IDEAL
SCENE, gather new data, investigate further and RE-EVALUATE or (B) If the
IDEAL SCENE has been more closely approached or attained the following
commendations or awards are assigned:
EVALUATOR.
This signifies the conclusion of the evaluation.
(Note: The last four targets may be made available on a mimeograph sheet
for the use of an evaluator in ending off his evaluation.)
By using this program ending, it is abundantly clear to all those
concerned with the evaluation including the evaluator that
THE PROGRAM AND ITS SUCCESSFUL EXECUTION ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF AN
EVALUATION.
Unless the program is fully, truthfully and successfully done, an
evaluation alone cannot remedy any situation and the ideal scene will not
be attained.
The reason for and the final objective of any evaluation is the approach
toward or attainment of the IDEAL SCENE.
L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:clb.jh.nf Copyright 19 1973, 1974 by L. Ron
Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[Note: The 17 May 1974 reissue corrected a typographical error in the
original mirneo.]
101
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 25 NOVEMBER 1973-1
Issue I
Rernimeo CORRECTED AND REISSUED 17 MAY 1974
Data Series 31 Addition
FINAL TARGET ATTACHMENT
To save the evaluator writing the final targets longhand this sheet is
provided. It can be filled in with the proper numbers and data,
inapplicable lines crossed out and this sheet stapled to the end of any
eval.
(Fourth from last number of the evaluation program.) Verify from
personal inspection of the existing evidence or the scene itself
that every target has been fully done without omission, alteration,
falsehood or exaggerated reports. EVALUATOR.
(Third from last number of the evaluation program.) Look at current
statistics and the results of the above inspection and the SITUATION
of this evaluation as written above AND SEE IF THE SITUATION IS NO
LONGER A THREAT. EVALUATOR.
(Second from last number of the evaluation program.) Look again at
the IDEAL SCENE as written above. Then look at the above two targets
and further investigate and SEE IF THE IDEAL SCENE HAS NOW BEEN
APPROACHED MORE CLOSELY OR ATTAINED. EVALUATOR.
(Last numbered target of the evaluation program.) (A) If the above
three targets do not show a favorable approach toward or attainment
of the IDEAL SCENE, gather new data, investigate further and RE-
EVALUATE, or (B) If the IDEAL SCENE has been more closely approached
or attained the following commendations or awards are assigned:
EVALUATOR.
LRH:ntmjh.nf
Copyright v 1973, 1974 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard Founder
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[Note: The 17 May 1974 reissue corrected a typographical error in the
original mirneo.]
102