From: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology and intelligence
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 10:39:22 PST
Reply-To: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Distribution: world
Organization: Bark At The Moon Productions

gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:

> In article <PqF3TB1w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.o
> 
> > I never stated that independent research is rare.  Someone assumed
> > that.  I stated that it isn't an entirely "routine activity", and
> > gave instances as examples.
> 
> Ok.  I see little point in becoming bogged down in a discussion about
> what is and what isn't "standard" or "routine" in research.  I say
> independent verification of results is, you say it isn't.  Let's
> leave it at that, and let the readers of this group make up their
> own mind about which of us is most familiar with current research
> practice.
> 
> I would like to back up a little, and get back to the original point
> of dispute, which is the article where scientologist John Holifield
> described how scientology training at increased his intelligence with
> at least 46 IQ points. John presented his experience as an experiment
> that could verify scientology as a hard science "for the benefit of
> those of you who want something more measurable".  My evaluation was
> that the data reported ny Mr. Holifield was worthless for two major
> reasons.  1) All testing that showed that IQ-gain had taken place been
> conducted by the same organization who had sold him the courses that
> was supposed to increase his intelligence.  2) The procedures for
> testing IQ, as reported by John Holifield, was non-standard and would
> with a high degree of probability lead to an inflated score.
> 
> As for 1), I guess we just has to agree to disagree whether
> independent testing in this sort of experiment has any merit or not.
> I'll be happy to leave it at that.

Fair enough.  Do you know why the church uses IQ, personality and
the Oxford Capacity Analysis?

> You've already stated that you agree that the procedures used for the
> IQ-testing in this particular experiment, as reported by John
> Holifield himself, were "against standard Church practices".  Does
> this mean that you also agree with me that repeated tests using the
> same test is not the proper way to conduct IQ testing?  If so, would
> you also accept that the 46 IQ point gain reported by John Holifield
> is invalid for this reason alone?

I would have to agree that John's example was a flawed test, but no
more flawed then your test of the "Contact Assist".

I won't invalidate John's claim of a 46 point IQ claim, because it
may have happened, and he could have experienced this increase.  As
I stated earlier, testing constantly with the same test is not
standard Church practice, and violates the reason for the IQ testing
in the first place.

> > We are talking about spiritualism, and mental health, so let's not
> > wander too far from the topic.  If independent testing is routine,
> > which company validated the findings of the:
> >
> >   Catholic Church
> >   Mormon Church
> >   Buddism
> >
> > What was the research group responsible for the independent testing
> > of the mental health practices like:
> >
> >   lobotomy
> >   ECT
> >   Transorbital Leukotomy
> >   Freudian Analysis
> 
> Why do you write "let's not wander too far from the topic" and then
> doing just that?  Because we are _not_ talking about spiritualism and
> mental health.  Nor are we talking about assorted world religions or
> various mental health practices.
> 
> We _are_ talking about the merits of a specific experiment where a guy
> with an IQ slightly below average for college students (110) takes a
> bunch of expensive courses which, he claims, results in his IQ rising
> to "at least 156" (which would make him among the 1% most intelligent
> people on the planet according to the statistics maintained by MENSA).
> 
> The only thing I am interesting in finding out is: DO THIS PARTICULAR
> EXPERIMENT, AS REPORTED BY JOHN HOLIFIELD, HAS ANY MERIT?  I would
> appreciate it very much if you, Bill Hardman, could address that
> particular question (preferably by answering "yes" or "no").  I don't
> think it particularly interesting to venture into a dicussion whether
> Scientology is relatively better than "Buddhism" or "Trans- orbital
> Leukotomy", or whatever it is you're trying to change the topic into.

To John, yes....To you no.  I don't know of any of my colleagues
that would attempt to publish a paper based on a test of one, do
you?  I have done testing of Scientologists in the Los Angeles area
at a company independent of the Church, and have found that an IQ
increase does occur.  The problem with the testing of the human
condition in the public, is now, and has always been the wide
environmental effects on test subjects.  When testing people, you
cannot get a good control situation to conduct the tests in without
altering the subjects actions to a un-workable solution.

> >>> The source for this is published in Science of Survival.
> >> I've ordered it through our library.  I'll report back when I've
> >> read it.  I assume the author is LRH.
> > Assuming again Gisle?  Now, Now... :)
> 
> I'm sorry, I know I shouldn't make wild assumptions like that.
> Now, this what I should have said:
> 
> Our library cannot make an inter-library loan request without knowing
> at least: 
>    - the author
>    - the title
> and they really like to know the publisher, year and place of
> publication as well.
> 
> Could you be so kind to provide me with enough publication data regarding
> said book to make our librarian happy?  Thanks in advance.

- the author     L. Ron Hubbard
- the title      Science Of Survival
- the publisher  Bridge Publications
U.S. Library of Congress No. 51-5566
Card Index No. RC461.H824
Classified Under:
  Medicine
  Psychotherapy
  Dianetics

> PS: I am of course looking forward to your next attempt to explain
>     the application of the PV equation, now that you've learnt about
>     the role of units in standard algebra.  Or have you decided to
>     to let that subject rest?

I never did decide to "let it rest".  That proved to be another
assumption of yours based on the mis-application of a single answer
to a specific question.  Your mistake.

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