From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: PV equation
Date: 15 Nov 92 17:44:45 GMT
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <ZXe5TB3w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman) writes:
> 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.
>> 
>> So I'll like to use this formula to compute the potential value (PV) of
>> two individuals, named "A" and "B".
>> 
>> Both are nice, caring persons so I'll set both their Dynamics (D) to
>> 3. I'll estimate that the magnitude person A is surviving on the
>> dynamic (x) to 8, while person B is doing slightly worse, amd score 6.
>> Now, person A is an absolute moron, and his IQ equals 70, while person
>> B is a genious that matches John Holifield's 156 IQ points:
>> 
>>     So we have:
>> 
>>               Person A   Person B
>>           I:        70        156
>>           D:         3          3
>>           x:         8          6
>>      and computing PV=I*D^x :
>>          PV:    459270     113724
>> 
>> So -- it looks like the "Potential Value" of the guy with an IQ in the
>> 70'ies is more than FOUR TIMES that of the guy with an IQ in the
>> genius range.  That's probably the political correct thing to believe
>> these days, but I guess that the moron will have a darn hard time
>> realizing that incredible potential to the extent that he actually
>> becomes four times as sucessful as the genious.

> 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".

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.

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.
--
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
------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology