HCOB: Motivatorish Cases

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 12 JULY 1962¹

Remimeo
Missions

MOTIVATORISH CASES

Ref:
Tape: 6111C02    HOW TO SECURITY CHECK

The following data has been compiled by Mary Sue at my request from her experience in directing the processing of cases.

The “Zeroes for the Theetie-Weetie Case” are particularly valuable. Although I gave the data in a lecture some months ago, it was not otherwise compiled or released and has been overlooked. The “Theetie-Weetie Case” is high on the APA yet makes no progress. This is because such cases believe you ought to know what they are thinking about, so every moment around them you are missing withholds. Their overt acts, that got them into this condition, are expressed in the listed Zeroes Mary Sue compiled below. This case is also motivatorish and very hard to prepcheck as they give nothing but motivators in answer to requests for missed withholds or overts and just about spin themselves in.

The auditor must not let a pc give motivator answers. This bulletin is valuable in that it gives the right questions that prevent this.

About 8% of all Scientology cases come under this heading. So if you don’t know these things, you will completely fail on one pc out of twelve, because that pc will avoid standard questions and, very adroitly, give motivator answers.

Such pcs also ARC break very easily so all acknowledgment must be particularly good and one must be firm but gentle in getting the auditing done.

Also, any case may sometimes do this.

THE MOTIVATOR CASE

There are certain types of preclears who are predominately motivatorish. Auditors can get into severe difficulties with such cases and cause a great deal of upset for a center or Academy by running them at effect, rather than at cause. A preclear who only gets off motivators in a session is not only being run at effect, but is also throwing out, while doing so, all of the end rudiments. So not only do we know that a case will not change when run on motivators, but we also know that such a case will have a drop in his graph due to ARC breaks. Remember that a reality break is part of an ARC break, as the ARC triangle has either corner depressed when one factor of the triangle is broken. The motivator case is well aware that each motivator answer is not truly real, but reactively he is incapable of looking at the cause side of the picture and considers any effort on the part of anyone to attempt to get him to do so is an effort on the part of that person to punish him or to make him guilty. Therefore it is vitally important with such a case to word questions which will permit no possibility of his answering the question with a motivator, so as to not get him started on this deteriorating cycle.

There are several reasons a case is in such a condition as this. The most general reason is that all responsibility or cause is blame. Such a person has many overts of blaming others and uses any motivator as a justification of his overts against others. Another reason is that this person has failed to and has had others fail to listen to and acknowledge various difficulties and troubles. And another reason is that the person believes that everyone should know all about them. Any question addressed to such a case restimulates missed withholds on them, as the auditor or individual should have known all about them in the first place. This case has overts on accusations of people and overts of pretended knowingness against others.

As already pointed out questions must be so worded with the motivator case that they cannot possibly answer a question addressed to them with a motivator answer. To prevent this occurring, the following questions are suggested:

MISSED WITHHOLDS:

IN THIS SESSION HAVE YOU THOUGHT, SAID OR DONE ANYTHING AGAINST ANOTHER?

IN THIS SESSION HAVE YOU COMMITTED ANY OVERT I HAVE FAILED TO FIND OUT?

IN THIS SESSION HAVE YOU COMMITTED ANY OVERT I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT?

SINCE YOU FIRST CAME ON THIS COURSE (SINCE YOU FIRST CAME HERE FOR PROCESSING), HAVE YOU DONE ANYTHING TO ANOTHER THAT HE OR SHE FAILED TO FIND OUT?

SINCE YOU FIRST CAME ON THIS COURSE (SINCE YOU FIRST CAME HERE FOR PROCESSING), HAVE YOU COMMITTED ANY OVERTS AGAINST ANOTHER THAT HE OR SHE FAILED TO FIND OUT?

ASSIST WORDING

OVERT/WITHHOLD ASSIST:

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO ANOTHER?

WHAT HAVE YOU WITHHELD FROM ANOTHER?

WHAT OVERT HAVE YOU COMMITTED?

WHAT OVERT HAVE YOU WITHHELD?

Particular note must be made here that on General O/W quite a few cases have figured out the perfect motivator answer—all answers are given as motivators which the preclear disguises as overts against the first dynamic. So the auditor says, “What have you done?” and the preclear says, “I have committed the overt against myself of being audited by you!” When a preclear does this, accept the answer but next time change the command wording.

PREPCHECK ZEROES

UNINTENTIONAL W/H:

IN THIS LIFETIME, HAS ANYONE FAILED TO LISTEN TO YOUR DIFFICULTIES?

IN THIS LIFETIME, HAVE YOU FAILED TO LISTEN TO SOMEONE’S DIFFICULTIES?

IN THIS LIFETIME, WAS THERE ANYONE WHO DIDN’T LISTEN TO YOUR TROUBLES?

IN THIS LIFETIME, WAS THERE ANYONE WHOSE TROUBLES YOU DIDN’T LISTEN TO?

IN THIS LIFETIME, HAS ANOTHER REFUSED TO LISTEN TO YOUR DIFFICULTIES?

IN THIS LIFETIME, HAVE YOU REFUSED TO LISTEN TO AN¬OTHER’S DIFFICULTIES?

ZEROES FOR THEETIE-WEETIES

SHOULD HAVE KNOWN:

HAVE YOU EVER FALSELY ACCUSED ANOTHER?

HAVE YOU DELIBERATELY PRESSURED ANOTHER WITH QUESTIONS?

HAVE YOU EVER SUBMITTED ANOTHER TO CONSTANT INTERROGATION?

HAVE YOU EVER HOUNDED ANOTHER WITH ACCUSATIONS?

HAVE YOU EVER USED ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ANOTHER IN ORDER TO GET QUESTIONS ANSWERED?

HAVE YOU EVER COMMITTED THE OVERT OF SUBJECTING ANOTHER TO ACCUSATIONS?

HAVE YOU EVER DELIBERATELY MISINFORMED PEOPLE? HAVE YOU EVER PRETENDED TO KNOW SOMETHING YOU DIDN’T? HAVE YOU EVER ACCUSED PEOPLE OF LYING? HAVE YOU EVER LIED ABOUT SOMETHING?

HAVE YOU EVER ACCUSED A PERSON OF KNOWING SOMETHING WHEN THEY DIDN’T?

So don’t run your pc at effect. If you are asking a question which gives you only motivators or mostly motivators or justifications or explanations or criticisms, ask the right question of your preclear.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Assisted by Director of Processing Saint Hill

Hubbard, L. R. (1962, 12 July). Motivatorish Cases. Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology (1991 ed., Vol. VI. pp. 562-565). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

Notes