From: nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: PV equation according to Bill!
Date: 18 Nov 1992 18:18:05 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

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:

[deleted: Gisles' note on PV=I*D^x]

also it seems that Bill has applied the technique of "selective
editing" to put Gisles statments out of context!

>> > 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.

	Keep Bills' example in mind for a moment.

	In fact lets work it out!

	the five year old genious in South Africa:

		PV=I*D^x
		  =(200 I.Q. points)*2^3
	  	  =1600 I.Q. points
	since we can't worry about units.
		PV=1600

	which of course is totaly meaningless withoug the units!  But 
lets calculate the PV of the moron!
	the moron:
		now due to Bills "selective editing" technique I
		don't know what Gisles' origional numbers were but
		I will make a guess.

		PV=I*D^x
		  =(86 I.Q. points)*2^8
		  =22016 I.Q. points
	again, ignoring the units, we get:
		PV=22016

Well anyway these are the types of numbers we get.  Please keep in
mind that Bill provided the example of the genious in South Africa.	  

Gisle said:
>> 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".

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

	No relevency.  Gisle just looked at the dictionary definition 
of PV and made a comment.  You must tell us what you meant by your
response Bill!


again it looks as though Bill uses the "selective editing" technique.

and we "walk in" on Gisle saying this:

>> 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.

Bill says:

>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?

	So you ARE verifying that the equation is time dependant.
Hmm, LRH didn't say so in his book!  Are you allowed to make this
assumption, Bill?  BTW, Gisles' statement WAS viewed scientifically,
you should know this, with your immense scientific training, Bill!


Gisle continues:
>> 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.

Bill says, without checking:
>Of course you recall that this measures PV in an un-abberated
>individual, correct?

	INCORRECT!!!  Nowhere in the book does LRH mention this!  In
fact I will quote a passage from the book to show what an TWIT LRH
was!

	from "Dianetics: A Handbook of Dianetics(R) Procedure" page
57 right beneath the introduction of the "PV" equation:

	"The _worth_ of an individual is computed in terms of
	 the alignment, on any dynamic, of his potential
	 value with optimum survival along that dynamic.  A
	 high PV may, by reversed vector, result in a nega-
	 tive worth as in some severely aberated persons.  A
	 high PV on any dynamic _assures_ a high worth only
	 in the unabberated person"  LRH,"Dianetics",Bridge:
	 1991.  pg 57.

the "_" surround italicised words.  So we learn from LRH himself
that the equation can be applied to abberated individuals.  Bill
YOU even applied it to an aberated individual(see above)!

	Also interesting to note is the use of the word "vector",
which is thoughfully defined at the bottom of the page as:"vector:
a physical quantity with both magnitude and direction, such as a
force or velocity", Now correct me if I'm wrong but isn't PV 
a scalar quantity?

	Another thing: "PV may, by reversed vector(?!?!?), result 
in a negative worth".  How?  Bill himself says that D ranges
from one to four, is there such a thing as negative I.Q.  Can 
x be complex?  I don't think so, Bill says x ranges from 
one to ten! 

	
	COME ON BILL!  Just answer the question.  
	How do you apply the equation?	
	You should know, you've seen "over 500" people
do it!!!!  Or were you lying?



>Bill Hardman
>If you don't have anything nice to say....Say something Rude!!!!


	Or lie, it seems!



Richard Nistuk
Nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca