From: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology and intelligence
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 19:05:12 PST
Reply-To: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Distribution: world
Organization: Bark At The Moon Productions

decot@cup.hp.com (Dave Decot) writes:

> Bill Hardman (hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org) wrote:
> : > 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?
> 
> I do.
> 
> First of all, "personality test" and "Oxford Capacity Analysis" are
> both names for the same thing.  The OCA has nothing to do with
> Oxford University, as if they approved of this mismash of ambiguous
> questions littered with British idioms and expressions from the 50's
> incomprehensible to Americans of the 90's.

At Celebrity Centre International, there is an OCA as well as a
personality test.  They look at two different areas of the
individual.

> The Case Supervisor (C/S) uses the OCA and IQ score "data" to determine
> whether processing has been effective and to guess what action to take
> next on the preclear.
> 
> But mostly, Registrars use the OCA to get people into Scientology by
> "demonstrating flaws" in their personalities, then the HGC (Hubbard
> Guidance Center; essentially, Department of Processing) uses them
> to "prove" either that processing has improved the individual's personality
> (if the scores go up) or that the person has become aware of previously
> suppressed shortcomings (if the scores go down).
> 
> : > 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.
> 
> The Dianetics "personality test" is always the same everywhere it is
> distributed, so the "retaking the same test" failure also occurs in this
> respect.  There is NO written policy in Scientology that any other test
> form should be used (either for this test or for IQ tests).
> 
> : > >>> 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... :)
> 
> ..
> 
> : - 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
> 
> There is no reason to "make fun" of Gisle for a correct surmise, unless of
> course the purpose is to make Gisle wrong.

Get a sence of humor.  It is a valid tool in dealing with life.

Bill Hardman

------------------------------- :) -----------------------------------
   hardman = hardman@throb.uucp [modem (818) 352-6297]

            h      mM    gs
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology