INDICATING "FLOATING NEEDLES "

by Peter Graham

3 July 1992

The practice of "indicating FNs" has been around for a long time. However, despite its longevity, there are some sound technical reasons why it should not be done.

The practice was not part of the auditing system before 1965 and started when FNs became the only criteria for determining when to end a process or procedure. The error of using only an FN was finally uncovered in 1970. Several other criteria (cognition and good indicators) were then added and the term End Phenomena was introduced, but the practice of indicating FNs continued.

The main error with indicating FNs is that it puts the person's attention on the meter, which is not where it should be.

Meter phenomena are of great interest to an auditor or facilitator, but they should not be of any conceTn to a person having sessions. He (or she) should have no attention on such things. If a meter (or any other type of biomonitoring device) is being used, its presence and its phenomena should be as invisible as possible to the person having sessions.

The real issue is whether or not the current procedure has been successfully completed or has reached a suitable point to end off (hereafter referred to as an endpoint). The only thing that needs to be ascertained and indicated is that an end point has been reached.

When an FN occurs during a procedure, it does not necessarily mean that an end point has been reached. Even if it is an end point, it does not necessarily mean that the procedure is fully completed (a full end point), as it may just be a good point to end the session (a session end point). See the article "Types of End Points" in The Free Spirit, Volume VIII, Issue 4.

Indicating FNs can lead to a form of dependency. Some rely on it to tell them or to confirm that something has been resolved. A person saying something like "I thought that should have FN'd" or asking "Did that FN?" shows that the person has some attention on the meter and that a dependency may exist.

Indicating FNs can sometimes be evaluative, especially when FNs are interpreted as vindication, agreement or confirmation that something is right or true. Technically, an FN does not necessarily mean any of those. Any indication made to a person in a session should not add up to a statement that something is right or wrong or true or false. The person should be allowed to do his or her own evaluatmg.

Many people who have had sessions over a period of years have reported having had "FNs" indicated to them when they felt bad or "felt no different". Such indications have sometimes caused confusion or reduced the credibility of the use of meters.

There are FNs and there are FNs. Some may be narrow and fleeting while others can be wide and persisting. Some are accompanied by good indicators (in varying degrees) and some aren't. The fact of an FN is not by itself enough information to decide whether or not a procedure has reached an end point. Meters do not reflect all that is occurring in a person's personal world and are therefore somewhat limited.

The phenomena of an FN is an observable indicator like any other indicator and should be seen in that light. Meters are simply biomonitoring or biofeedback devices that provide additional information in addition to other observable phenomena. Such indicators are useful in that they are meaningful and can be used in decision making by facilitators or case planners. Meters can be useful but they are not essential to an auditing type of approach, whereas the subject of indicators is and always will be part of the fundamentals.

Indicating FNs tends to over-emphasize meter phenomena as opposed to the other indicators of a possible end point. We do not indicate other things like "You just had a realization", so why indicate the FN?

Some persons have had FNs indicated to them for so long that they have come to expect it and feel something is missing if it isn't done. The matter should be discussed openly and agreement reached on not doing it. If, after that, someone now and again asks if an FN has occurred, go ahead and tell him (or her) and don't make a big deal out of it, but try to wean the person off the need for such indicatlons by immediately placing his attention on the success or win and acknowledging that.

Indicating FNs performs no genuinely useful function and it is not hard to find acceptable substitutes for it. Some examples are: "l would like to indicate that an end point has been reached " or "Have you reached an endpointon this procedure?" followed by an indication that it has been completed. Another example is: "It appears we have reached an end point on this procedure, do you agree with that? " followed by the indication "Fine. The procedure is now ended. Well done. "

The practice of indicating FNs is a hangover from an earlier period in the development of auditing technology. It doesn't help sessions or enhance results and can actually be an impediment to a person's personal enhancement.