From: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology is good??
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 92 14:34:22 PST
Reply-To: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Distribution: world
Organization: Bark At The Moon Productions

> ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) writes:

>> In article <qToPTB1w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.o
>>>ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) writes:
>>
>>> where _PV_ is the "potential value of an individual or group", _I_ is the
>>> "intelligence" and _D_ is the "Dynamic".
>>>       What is x?
>>        As explained in the book, x stands for the magnitude on
>>which the person is surviving on the dynamic.
>
>      This link was not made.  But thanks for the info.
>
>>>       What are the units of _PV_,_I_,_D_ and _x_?
>>        Re-read the chapter.  It's self-explanitory.
>
>      No its not.  Nowhere in part 1 of "Dianetics" is there a
>discussion of the units.  If anybody knows, please tell me!

How many dynamics were discussed in the first chapter?
How does society measure intellegence?
To keep it simple for you, try using units of 1 to 10.
>
>>>       How do you measure them?
>>        With widely accepted testing.
>
>      WHAT "widely accepted testing"?  Be specific!

Haven't you ever had your intellegence tested?  Use that value.

>>>       What ranges of values are normally seen?
>>       Below average.
>
>      By RANGES I mean, give me values, give me the
>upper and lower bounds, the most common values AND the
>average value.  Or make it easy and just send me some data.

It would depend on what ranges you decided to apply to "x".

>>>       How do you apply the equation?
>>        Insert the known factors and use standard algebra.
>
>      Brilliant! You must be a "hi skool grajuate"!

You asked the stupid question, not I.

>>>       What experimental evidence is there to show that it works?
>>        Do it and find out.  Why take someone elses word?
>      Do what?  Why do you take Ron's word for it?
>
>>>       Can someone suggest an experiment?
>>        Apply it to yourself.
>
>      O.K.   Lets see:
>
>I want to find my PV.  O.K. since money is so important to the CoS
>(see my next post!) PV must be in units of the American dollar.  Now
>my potential income next term from my student loan is about
>$2500.00 (US) and from my part time job is about $700.00 US.  So
>my PV must be  $3200.00.

I can see that you will never make it in the private sector.  It is
obvious that you were asleep during your high school education.

>Now lets see if the equation gets the same value.
>
>I is my intelligence,  Hmmm, this must refer to I.Q. score!
>My I.Q. is about average, I suppose, so I=125 I.Q. points.
>
>D is my dynamic.  This refers to where I am within the four
>dynamics(TM), I guess.  Well I, as an individual, would like to
>see mankind survive, and sure, I'd even like to see all the little
>symbiotes survive.  So... I guess in my case D=4, no units are ever
>mentioned, so it must be unitless.

Wrong.  The unit is between 1 and 4.

>x, according to Bill, is magnitude on which the person is
>surviving on the dynamic.  Oh!  'x' must be unitless, since
>it is a power and not multiplied by any constant.  Hey!
>It must be a probability(quite a leap I realise, but I'm grasping
>here)!  Well I'm alive, so the magnitude of the probability
>that I'm surviving is 1... x=1

Anyone with a grain of sence would use a value of one to ten to
measure the magnitude on which the person is surviving on the
dynamic.  That should say enough.


>
>ok here we go:
>
>      PV = I*D^x
>         = (125 I.Q. points)*(4)^1
>      PV = (1000 I.Q. points)
>
>I estimated my PV to be $3200.00  the "equation" was WAY off.  The
>units were even wrong ([$]!=I.Q. points)
>
>      It seems like this theory needs a lot of work!!!

Not as much as you do.

>As a matter of fact it seems the "equation", not being scalable, is
>not really an equation at all, just a jumble of letters, that happened
>to hit the "ground" in some order resembling what the layman might
>think was an equation.  It sort of reminds me about the time I was
>at a party put on by one of my polital science friends, and a
>philosophy student, apon hearing that I was a physics student, came
>up to me and started a "conversation" with the sentence:
>
>      "Say, In Einsteins theory of relativity, you know
>      the one where he said that everything was relative..."
>
>ACCKKK!
>
>>>       Could someone e-mail me the experimental data?
>>        Why, it's simple to do.  I have observed over 500 people
>>with a simple high school education work the equation to their
>>complete understanding.  The only help they required was making sure
>>that they fully understood the words used.
>
>      O.K. help me out here, Bill, explain the words!!!

It's not worth my time.

>
>>>       Is the origional experiment reproducable?
>>        Yep.
>
>      Good.  Post the description of the original(now that I have
>my dictionary) experiment.  And the data, if there actually was an
>experiment.
>

Read "Science of Survival".

>>> The first part of the book left me with many, many questions, such as
>>> these, about Dianetics.  But, I thought I'd best start small.
>>        "The only reason a person gives up a study or becomes
>>confused or unable to learn is because he or she has gone past a
>>word that was not understood." LRH
>
>Yup, I read that.  I don't feel that it's always applicable.

You have proved it is.

Bill Hardman










































































































































------------------------------- :) -----------------------------------
   hardman = hardman@throb.uucp [modem (818) 352-6297]
                (Bark At The Moon Productions)
                        *A Secret Cult*
If you don't have anything nice to say....Say something Rude!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology