From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Subject: Re: PV equation
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:33:30 GMT
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <ui0DuB3w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman) writes:
> gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:
>> In article <ZXe5TB3w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.o
>>> gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:

>>>> Just another note on that "scientific" equation from "Dianetics":
>>>> 
>>>> 		      PV=I*D^x
>>>> 
>>>>       where:
>>>> 	 PV = potential value of an individual or group
>>>> 	 I  = intelligence (presumably IQ)
>>>> 	 D  = the "Dynamic".  This is a number between 1 and 4
>>>> 	      indicating where the individual are within 4 "dynamics".
>>>> 	 x  = the magnitude on which the person is surviving on the
>>>> 	      dynamic, it is a number between 1 and 10
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks to Bill Hardman, we now know how to apply it (if we're not too
>>>> fussy about things that pesky mathematicans care about, like units).
>>>> His instructions are quite simple, viz:
>>>> 
>>>> >>> Insert the known factors and use standard algebra.
>>>> 
>>> Two years ago, a 5 year old in South Africa was found
>>> to posess the highest IQ in the world.  Some 200+ or something to
>>> that effect, as published in the Los Angeles Times.  Since he could
>>> not read or write, his effects on his first dynamic would be less
>>> than 33% (or 3 for an x value).  He was the effect of his family's
>>> actions, putting him in the 33% and below level.  He was in no way
>>> involved with his tribes decisions, putting him at 0% on the third
>>> dynamic, so D would be 2.  By comparison, B would be a moron
>>> compared to this child, but using the equation, you can see that B's
>>> PV is substantially higher.
>>>
>>> It isn't hard to see that if there is more control over a
>>> dynamic, there is greater potential value in the individual.  A
>>> genius sitting in a room, failing to interact with himself, others,
>>> his community, or mankind is worthless.
>>
>> Well, I was under the impression that this equation was supposed to
>> express the "POTENTIAL VALUE" of an individual or a group, and knowing
>> how perilous it is to read past a misunderstood word I had carefully
>> looked up the word "potential" in a good dictionary.  It told me
>> that:
>>
>>    1. po.ten.tial \p*-'ten-ch*l\ \-'tench-(*-)l{e-}\ aj existing
>>       in possibility : capable of development into actuality
>>    2. potential n : something that can develop or become actual
>>
>> etc.
>>
>> However, when reading your two specific examples, I cannot understand
>> how they relate to the standard meaning of the word "potential".
>>
>> Presumably, the 5 year child with a 200+ IQ in a tribal setting would
>> not stay 5 years forever?  And with time, isn't it likely that he
>> would be able to use his intelligence to aquire literacy skills (if
>> those were important skills in his environment) or other relevant
>> skills.  As his skills increased, his AV ("actual value" -- if we
>> could agree on a metric for that -- perhaps his position in the tribal
>> hierarchy?) would increase, but surely the POTENTIAL VALUE should
>> remain constant -- or you and I have a very different understanding of
>> what is meant by the word "potential".

> Except for the fact that you have failed to take into account the
> variable "D", and it's "x" factor.

>> The same the genious sitting in the room.  It looks like you think
>> that the POTENTIAL VALUE of that person would increase if he or she
>> walked out of the room and started interacting -- but his potential
>> must have been there all the time, that potential just didn't develop
>> before he decided to gou out and use it?  I can understand that the
>> you might argue that the ACTUAL VALUE of a person may be perceived as
>> increasing if that person is interacting with his or her environement
>> in a postive way -- but I cannot see how POTENTIAL VALUE of any
>> specific person can change over time.

> The above statement was not viewer scientifically Gisle.  If he
> walked out of the room, and started interacting, wouldn't values in
> the equation change?

I think you must be some of the most evasive individuals I ever have
had the misfortune to debate.

First to answer your question: Yes, the way you explained how to use D
and x in your examples, the values in the equation would certainly
change.  That very observation was what I tried to point out to you in
the paragraphs quoted above -- so I can't see why you are making a
major point of it by asking me whether I think it is or isn't so.

But I obviously have a problem in getting through to you, so if you
can bear with me, let me try to explain the problems I have with your
two specific examples one more time:

   Given the standard dictionary defintion of the word "potential", how
   is it possible to both think 1) that PV means "potential value", _and_
   2) that it is legitimate to define the factors on the right hand side
   of the equation in such a way that the computed value may increase or
   decrease depending upon any actions the person may decide or not decide
   to take in the future?

>> So, Bill, this look's messier than ever.  Before you presented your
>> two examples I thought that it at least it was pretty unabigious what
>> PV was supposed to express (i.e.  "potential value" and the upper
>> bound of the "actual value" the person or organization may reach
>> during his/her/its lifetime.  Your examples has effectively eradicated
>> that interpretation of PV -- so we're back to really basics: Trying to
>> figure out what the symbol "PV" is supposed to mean.

> Of course you recall that this measures PV in an un-abberated
> individual, correct?

Yes, I recall that, but I still appreciate that you take the time
pointing it out to me.  Do you think that you could oblige me by
explaing what the significance of that reminder was, and what the heck
this has to do with the point I wanted you to clarify.

And in case I haven't made it clear enough for what the point was, let
me repeat that the problem I have woth your examples, has to do with
trying to apply the standard dictionary defintion of the word
potential" (i.e.: "something that can develop or become actual" to
your own explanation on how to compute this value in two particular
situations.  To focus on one of them: The fact that a 5 year old was
yet unable to read and write seemed in your example to result in a
computation of a value for the PV that didn't take into account that
in the future, for this person, literacy was a skill that in all
likelyhood would "develop or become actual".  Because the value
computed when the person was 5 years old didn't take this possibility
(potential) into account, it couldn't be the correct "potential value"
for that particular person at that point in person's life.

--
Meta-disclaimer: A society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers.
 
- gisle hannemyr  (Norsk Regnesentral)
  OSI:   C=no;PRMD=uninett;O=nr;S=Hannemyr;G=Gisle (X.400 SA format)
         gisle.hannemyr@nr.no                      (RFC-822  format)
  Inet:  gisle@ifi.uio.no
  UUCP:  ...!mcsun!ifi!gisle
------------------------------------------------