Home  Search Level 0  Level 1  Level 2  Level 3  Level 4  Level 4Pro  Level 5  C/Sing  Solo

| Tech terms | Scales | Axioms | Drills | Checksheets | Processes | Prep. lists | C/S terms | C/S tool | Grades | Cramm | Points | KTW | Online |

to end


Two Way Communication
as a Process (TWC)


Itsa,  1. A term made up from "It is a". The pc's action of answering an auditor's question in which the pc positively identifies something with certainty.   2. Pc saying what is, what is there, who is there, where it is, what it looks like, ideas about, decisions about, solutions to, things in his environment. (The pc talking continuously about problems or puzzlements or wondering about things in his environment, is not itsaing).   3. A pc who is itsaing is simply looking at and identifying some things. 4.  TA comes from saying "It is . . ." Itsa isn't even a comm line. It's what travels on a comm line from pc to auditor, if that which travels is pc saying with certainty "It is...!"

Two way communication as processing can best be characterized as a style of auditing. The process has everything to do with getting the pc to itsa about an area and keep him talking on the subject. To do that, the auditor does not use set commands, but listens with interest and uses light questions and half acks.

The auditor would start by having a charged subject to do the two way communication on. The C/S instruction for the session could be: Do a TWC on 'apples' to F/N, cog, VGI's. The first thing the auditor has to ensure is, that the subject of 'apples' is charged or he wouldn't do the action.

The auditor would give this R-factor:

"I am going to check a subject for charge. If charged, we will do a TWC on the subject."

He clears the subject wording by using 'Clearing commands': "First, what does 'Apples' mean to you?"
The auditor is just as interested in the Meter response as in the pc's answer here.

PC: "Apple means a common fruit from a tree" (no read)
Auditor: "Thank You"
Auditor: "I am going to check the subject on the Meter."
(Watching Meter): "Apples" x
"On apples, has anything been suppressed?" x
"On apples, has anything been invalidated?" SF
The button 'invalidated' read. This means the auditor has a valid read on 'Apples'. He can now take up the subject in two way communication auditing.


Two Way Comm is close to 
   'Listen Style'. The difference   
is that the auditor actively 
guides the pc into 
Itsa with light questions.

He looks interested at the pc and says: "Tell me about apples", or some such question to get the pc started. He sits back and listens. Two way comm is close to listen style from 'Styles of Auditing', but there is one important difference. Under Listen Style it said: "Listen Style isn't the same as 'Itsa'. You could say it is an invitation to the pc to Itsa. But technically 'Itsa' is the action of the pc saying "It is a..." In other words, that is a pc action. So the auditor only uses a simple question, attention and interest to get the pc talking. To get the pc to itsa is beyond the scope of Listen Style."
So the difference is: in two way comm the auditor asks light questions to get the pc going and itsa in the area.
He uses his understanding of the definition of Itsa above to formulate the questions. Here are some examples of questions:

Tell me some ideas you have about (apples)?
Any other ideas about (apples)?
Tell me some considerations you have about (apples)?
Any thoughts about (apples)?
Any decisions about (apples)?
Any feelings about (apples)?
Can you describe that scene to me?
When did that happen?


General Rule of TWC   
Ask for significances: thoughts,   
ideas, considerations, feelings, 
reactions. You stay with light 
questions to get the pc to itsa.

These are just examples. The general rule is: ask for significances: thoughts, ideas, considerations, feelings, reactions. You stay with light questions to get the pc to itsa and keep the pc itsa'ing without plunging the pc into the Bank too deep. You are really just trying to skim the surface of the Bank for things already stirred up and restimulated in TWC.

Questions Not to Use
There is one important rule about what questions not  to use:

Do not use a Listing Question in Two way comm.

By a "Listing Question" we mean any question which directly or indirectly calls for items. If you use subject questions with 'Who', 'What', 'Which' or 'Why' the TWC turns into a listing action. You wrongly invited the pc to give a list of persons, places, reasons, etc.

Listing is guided by The Laws of Listing and Nulling, which is a subject of its own.
Listing questions wrongly done can lead to upset pc's. If you introduce listing questions into your TWC you may end up with mysteriously upset pc's. So you never use such a question as the main question for a TWC. Using Who, What, Which or Why after the main question can also turn the session into a listing action.

Examples of wrong questions: "Who upset you?" You are asking the pc to give a list of persons (items). "What are you upset about?", would also be a listing question as it asks for items. "Which person did you trust the most?" would also ask for items. "Why are you upset?" may plunge the pc into the Bank.

"What happened?" is different than "What illness?" or "What town?", the last two being too close to listing questions.
"Who were there?" (see definition of Itsa) is different from "Who upset you?" The real difference here is, that an L&N action is designed to find just one final answer - THE Item. In other words L&N also involves a process of exclusion and choice.

Other Examples of Correct Questions: "How are you doing lately?" is a correct TWC question. It would uncover out ruds and be cleaned up easily. It gets off charge but does not get into items. "Are you better these days than you used to be?", "How have you been since the last session?" are all light rudiment type questions that let the pc Itsa, without going into a list or plunging the pc into the Bank. Your guiding principle is to get the pc to Itsa the charge already steered up and available.

TWC as a Rud: "How are you doing?" is sometimes used as a rudiment. When the pc is well into auditing and seems to get on with it  you can simply replace formal Flying Rudiments in the beginning of session with "How are you doing?" If the pc has an out rudiment he will tell you. The question will uncover it and you would handle the out rud with the obvious rudiment procedure (ARC break, PTP, M/W/H). If the pc feels fine when coming in  the "How are you doing?" will simply produce an F/N VGI answer and you can go onto the major action.

TWC's Revealing an Out Rudiment
A TWC session on a major subject can also uncover an out rudiment in the area. Let's say you do the TWC on 'Apples' and the pc comes up with an upset that happened some time in the past. The correct auditor action is to take it up with ARC break procedure (you never audit a pc over an ARC break, but do an Assessment instead).

Example: The pc is upset with somebody who stole her apples when she was a child; the TWC uncovered it. You would ask: "Was that an ARC break?" (F)
PC "Yes, it certainly was!"
Auditor: "OK, I'll assess that ARC break".
Auditor does so and takes it E/S to F/N, VGI's.

The pc may cognite on the whole subject and have F/N, VGI, Cog on Apples. That would be the EP for the TWC as well. If no subject EP occurred you would simply return to your TWC and complete the action to EP. In this fashion you can take up out ruds as PTP's, Problems, Withholds, Missed Withholds and ARC breaks.

TWC a Class 3 Action
The reason that Two Way Communication is a Class 3 action is, that the auditor should know how to do different repair lists. A list as L1C is designed to handle upset pc's. The auditor may have to resort to that if a simple ARC break Assessment seems insufficient.

Also, as explained above, an auditor trained in Listing and Nulling will know the dangers of getting into a listing situation, but also how to repair it if it should happen.

Deadly Sins
Besides using Listing questions there are two other deadly sins.
One thing a beginning auditor has to be warned about is Q&A. The freer format of the TWC session could tempt some poorly trained auditor to do just that. Q&A meaning: Questioning an answer.

Example: Pc: "I never liked my brother back then." Auditor: "What about your brother?" Pc: "He was a teacher's pet." Auditor: "What about teacher's pets?" Pc: "I don't like them." Auditor: "What else don't you like?" And so on and on.
In correct TWC  the auditor holds the main line of the subject, no matter how he phrases it and listens to and writes down what the pc says. The auditor may see a TA Blowdown on "I never liked my brother back then". He would note that down, as it could be taken up as a later action.

Remember what it said under Auditors Admin: "When running a two-way communication process it is important that all items (terminals, statements, etc.) that read are marked on the worksheets: SF, F, LF, LFBD. All reading items are circled in green after the session". Now you know why. They can be taken up later and produce more TA action.


    Warning! Worst example: 
Pc: "I never liked my brother." 
Aud: "What about your brother?"
Pc: "He was a teacher's pet."
Aud: "Why don't you like teacher's pets?"
Pc: "Hmm, they are too perfect."
Aud: "There is no 'being too perfect'!"

3 Q's and auditor Q&A'ed, asked a listing 
Q and evaluated/invalidated pc's answer. 

Evaluation/Invalidation in auditing TWC is the third deadly sin. The auditor asks and listens. He doesn't explain or comment on anything to the pc. 

Wrong example: Pc: "I didn't get that much out of the process."
Auditor: "Well you see that process was intended to ..." and here he is into Evaluation. Even the auditor's facial expression can be evaluation.

Ask and listen and ack. Prompt only by varying the original question now and then, that's what a good TWC auditor does.

Worksheets of TWC
When keeping the worksheets of the session you need to provide some specifics: the question you ask (maybe abbreviated) and the pc's response.  If a pc answer gives a large read or Blowdown you want to note down pc's exact statement. Such statements reveal charged areas and can be used by the C/S for later actions (as mentioned). If you take great care of noting down the exact pc statement that gave a significant Meter reaction and handle it in a later action you ensure optimum gains and no By-passed Charge left behind. 

If the pc is mysteriously upset after a TWC session the first thing the C/S would look for is, if the pc started to list on a wrongly included listing question. If this is the case the correct repair action would be to complete the list or do a repair list (L4BRB) on the action. This would have to be done by an auditor trained in Listing & Nulling (L&N).

TWC is a great action to have available. It is easy to do on starting pc's as it does not use a lot of technical terms. Thus it is easy to get results with on less educated pc's (less educated in auditing). Also, even pc's in bad shape to whom more sophisticated processes would be unreal, usually respond well to TWC.
Yet this action stays with the auditor as a basic tool in handling any level of pc to the most advanced levels of Operating Thetan.

TWC's are usually done to destimulate areas heavily charged. It is not classified as a Major Action. It is a tool of Repair. But pc's having troubles in life or auditing can attest to the magic of two way communication done strictly under Auditors Code and all of basic auditing. The trick is simply to get the pc talking about a subject that is in hot restimulation in his Bank. Open the flood gates and drain the area for charge. To keep the area discharging you don't go looking for more but simply keep the channel clear and the pc talking with light questions right down the main line.

TWC is also used to get a pc to fully cognite on a subject recently audited. By taking that subject up as a TWC and have the pc discuss his thoughts, ideas, etc. his cognition will usually widen and bring about a stable EP.

Sometimes it is used as a check-up on a pc. The reason it is done in session in this case is, that the auditor can repair or clean up any non optimum situation right away.

(End of Guided Tour)


Two Way Comm Drill

1. Give R-Factor to pc that you will be doing TWC if subject (we use "vegetables" as example) is charged.

2. Write the TWC question on your worksheet. Clear it while watching the Meter.

3. Ask pc the question and watch for read on the subject statement (vegetables). If no read on question or pc's statement, check 'suppressed', 'invalidated' on the subject. (If still no read, don't do anything further with it). Below we assume there was a valid read.

4. Look at the pc and say: "Tell me about ___ (vegetables)."

5. Listen to what the pc says. Write down any reads with the exact statement the read occurred on.

6. Don't go off the subject you are TWC'ing. You must take what you started to an F/N, Cog, VGIs. Sometimes you may have to go earlier similar to F/N.

7. TWC is Listen Style Auditing with ITSA questions. Apply the rule "A silent auditor invites ITSA".
    Listen to and acknowledge what the pc says. 

8. Don't use questions that start with "Who", "What", "Which" or "Why" in your subject matter as this easily turn it into Listing Questions. You should avoid these type of questions entirely, unless you are 100% sure of what Itsa is and isn't. 

9. TWC questions can be limited to feelings, reactions, significances; they must never ask for terminals or locations. TWC questions are not rote but you must stick to the subject and not Q & A.

10. If any ARC break, PTP or M/W/H shows up on the TWC, they must be handled to EP per Auditors Rights and Flying Ruds. If pc cognites directly on the subject (vegetables) it may be the EP of the action.

11. In most cases you will handle the out rud and return to the TWC and take it to its EP.

12.  Any TWC question that did read will go to F/N.

13. The drill is passed when the student auditor can TWC correctly and smoothly with excellent TRs 0-4.




Home  Search Level 0  Level 1  Level 2  Level 3  Level 4  Level 4Pro  Level 5  C/Sing  Solo

| Tech terms | Scales | Axioms | Drills | Checksheets | Processes | Prep. lists | C/S terms | C/S tool | Grades | Cramm | Points | KTW | Online |

to top

Clearbird Publishing, 2003, 2004 | Jo Seagull | Tell friend |