I thought I’d share a realization- this idea was not new to me, but I have it to a greater depth after listening to a John Mcmasters lecture about power processing, in which he touched on the subject of “communication exercises”:
In TR’s training, when being made to observe another’s “perfect TR’s”, whether through live example, video, or audio recording, a type of contagion of aberration frequently takes place where there is a mechanical duplication of the demonstrator’s intonations, pitch, velocity, posture, etc, as opposed to a true understanding of how that person is (hopefully) simply communicating in the verbal way that is perfectly natural for them, emanating curiosity/interest in the PC’s answer to the question, and/or effortless intention, devoid of reservations, to have compliance to each command given.
When the former occurs, a valence circuit auditing comm cycle is created, which makes for a strained and difficult session, because the PC is confronted by a machine, rather than a live, interested person, and that is likely to prevent the PC to be fully in-session, as it can be distracting, if not restimulating. An auditor who audits this way is an example of contagion of aberration through mis-training. This can also come about through mechanically duplicating the speech and other mannerism patterns of someone who has audited you.
Auditors shouldn’t all sound alike in their delivery of auditing questions and commands, they should sound like themselves, asking and directing out of true natural interest and intention. Their acknowledgements should be appropriate in response to what the PC is communicating, again showing interest and understanding, in the way that the person doing the auditing naturally expresses him/herself.
I think that the term “model TR’s” misleads trainees to think that they should aspire to perfectly mechanically duplicate how another speaks. I think “natural comm cycle” is the idea to aspire to, and to arrive at. I’ve had auditors who were truly in comm with me as theirselves, and as a result my own ARC and sense of comfort was tremendously higher as a PC with them.
I’ve learned, particularly in studying Power Processing, that for maximal case gain and efficiency of good results, the PC should feel completely safe and free to dramatize, rather than feel self-conscious, having any concern that the auditor might in any way not be perfectly accepting and understanding of whatever they are looking at and experiencing in session. That’s a key necessity, that’s being completely “in-session”, feeling completely safe and free to dramatize. After all, the session is for the PC.
Love, Dex

« »