From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Subject: Re: Experiment to verify ARC theory
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:48:35 GMT
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <1992Oct13.203931.3648@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

> Here is an experiment that you can do to independently veryify one
> of the most basic principles of Scientology.  I really hoped that you
> would be more interested in using the data to improve conditions,
> but for those who demand proof...
>
> ARC is a word that we use in Scientology to represent understanding.
>
> The A stands for affinity.  By affinity we mean the degree of likingness
> between people.  It also means the willingness to occupy the same
> space.  In other words, the higher the affinity the smaller the distance
> between the people.
>
> R is Reality.  What we are talking about is the degree of agreement
> reached between people.

[[ Well, that's not what I am talking about when I am talking about reality,
   but I admit that this way of looking at it is consistent with the
   subjective idealism that is at the core of scientology ("What is true
   is what is true to you"). ]]

> C is Communication.   More specifically its willingness to communicate.
>
> We put them together like this.....
>
>      R
>     / \
>    A---C
>
> The reason they are put together is because they are sort of connected.
> If you raise affinity (like someone more), R and C will rise also (they
> will agree with you more and be more willing to communicate)
>
> Also if you disagree with someone (lower R) they will like you less
> (Affinity is lowered) and will be less willing to communicate (C goes down.)
>
> Make a few more examples of your own so that you have the idea and it
> is yours before we actually test the theory.
>
> Here is the experiment.
>
> 1.  Get 100 volunteers and divide them into two groups of 25 twins.
>
> 1A.  Then you coach one twin out of each pair in one group not to agree
> with anything the other one says.  You don't tell anyone else in that group
> or the control group what is happening.
>
> 2.  Have each pair of twins spend two hours in a room alone with the other
> twin.
>
> 3.  After the two hours, survey the twins and measure how much they like
> each other and how willing they are to communicate to each other.
>
> 4.  Do some statistics or tabulate the results however you like.
>
> According to the theory of ARC, the twins in the control group will be
> more willing to communicate with the other twin than the twins who have
> been disagreed with.
>
> Try it,

I must admit I haven't tried the experiment, but I pretty well convinced
that if I did, the outcome will be as you predicted.


> or develop your own experiment and then report the results.

OK -- as a "gendanken-experiment", I've put myself in this situation
and as the unwitting half of a pair where I for two hours have to put
up with stuff like:

Me:   Nice day, isn't it?
Twin: No it isn't.
Me:   But, but the sun is shining, we've got a nice warm breeze!
Twin: It's raining.
Me:   I beg you pardon?
Twin: No, you don't.
Me:   You a Monty Phyton fan or something?
Twin: No, I'm not!

...and after two hours, I would probably have a rather negative attitude
towards continuing the conversation or sharing space with that person.


Then, as a control, I put myself in a situation (again as the unwitting
half) of a pair where my twin has been coached to agree with everything
I say:

Me:   Nice day, isn't it?
Twin: It certainly is!
Me:   Nice and hot -- especially for october.
Twin: It certainly is hot -- especially for october.
Me:   What do they call this -- "Pakistani summer"?
Twin: Yes, they do call it "Pakistani summer".
Me:   You an ELIZA fan or something?
Twin: Yes, I am!

... and I doubt that I would be willing to put up with the full two hours
of that conversation ...

This alternative experiment would actually test the gist of the ARC
theory -- that there is some strong correlation beween how much
pepople agree with each other and "affinity" and willingness to
communicate.  I would guess that the outcome of this alternative form
of the experiment would be pretty inconclusive.  People would hate the
guts of their twins whether the twin always agreed or always
disagreed.

So. to arrive at my point: _Your_ proposed experiment is totally
irrelevant as far as the "theory of the ARC" is concerned.  You are
setting up two conversations -- one where one of the twins is
instructed to never agree with his or her converstaion partner, and a
"control group" where the partners haven't got any particular
instructions, and therefore (I assume) are permitted to engage in
meaningful exchange of ideas (some of which they may agree on, others
they may disagree on).  The "theory of the ARC" doesn't say anything
about what happens when people have a meaningful discussion -- it is
only concerned with whether people agree with each other or not.  So
by permitting the "control group" to engage in meningful discussion,
you are conducting an experiment that is outside the bounds dictated
by the theory you are trying to test.

Please try again.
--
Disclaimer: THESE ARE MY OPINIONS!  MINE!  MINE!  ALL MINE!
 
- 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