Review Detail

I sup'd this for a few years at Saint Hill in 1984-5 and at ITO in the early 90s for some execs. I got very familiar with what it took to train someone to do the actions per the instructions. One very important thing I noticed was that people who were both well set-up casewise, and well-trained as solo auditors and on OT2 itself, tended to do well on the level (and on OT3). Conversely, people who weren't well set-up casewise, and/or who weren't confident and competent at solo auditing AND well-drilled on the procedures of auditing OT2, didn't do well at all on OT2 (or OT3). It needs a good sup to train (lots of drilling needed!) someone on OT2, not some out-tech C/S who thinks a sup is superfluous and "delivers the OT Levels".

Now, I think the theory of OT2 is complete and utter bullshit. That fact notwithstanding, I have observed on maybe a hundred solo auditors that if someone is well set-up casewise, well-trained as a solo auditor and well-drilled on the procedures of OT2, then doing the procedures correctly in session will produce the desired result. The fact that the stated procedure can produce good results does not logically mean that the *theory* is accurate.

Someone just reading this stuff online and casually trying it out is highly unlikely to get a result, for the reasons given above. And with the far-fetched theory, they will think that it is *all* bullshit, and consider people who have professed great wins on OT2/3 mentally defective.